[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

garion333 wrote:

Beto 2020

Edit: Joe Biden is not a viable CA didate, especially if you think age is a factor against Warren.

What exactly do you think disqualifies Biden but not Beto? Is it just the age thing?

Biden's case, as I see it, is that he would be the nominee most in line with a more traditional midwest strategy. To me this has the clear flaw that it is outdated and is what makes him one of the less viable choices - i.e. would he make gains in the midwest that are more offset by people who may be so turned off they do not show up in 2020.

Beto I think is more of a new face / emphasize more progressive policies as the path to the white house. From my limited understanding Beto may not be progressive enough for some but not to the extent Biden may discourage the far left.

I think Biden simply has too long a record that will be used against him extensively. And he's really old. The age thing will be a huge flag against him the entire race. I also think the Dems running out Biden is a little like Hillary being given the nom. That's old news. They need new faces to bring the energy.

I don't think Beto is a legit candidate for 2020, though stranger things have happened. I am simply interested in him because I think he is the type of person the left needs running. And he's got a lot of momentum atm. That may all he has though.

I love Biden, but I wouldn't want him to be the nominee...because of the age thing.

He is also too handsy. Even if it is coming from an innocent yet oblivious place, which ohmygodIhopeitis, I don't want to see what Fox can do with that.

It also kind of speaks to the age thing. I get it, in the 50's adults were supposed to paw children as much as possible, I guess to check for consumption or whatever. But to just keep living your life not recognizing you aren't supposed to lightly chew on other people's kids is something of a elected office deal-killer for me.

I mean, there's also the stuff that's sunk his previous bids - the plagiarism, Anita Hill..

Garrcia wrote:

Biden's case, as I see it, is that he would be the nominee most in line with a more traditional midwest strategy. To me this has the clear flaw that it is outdated and is what makes him one of the less viable choices - i.e. would he make gains in the midwest that are more offset by people who may be so turned off they do not show up in 2020.

You know, I don't think it's outdated in the Presidential contest. I think he'd destroy Trump because it's *about* to be outdated, but right now it would be huge.

Your comment makes me realize, though, the effect he might have downballot and in the midterms. With Trump's star falling far faster and farther than I ever could have imagined only two years ago, Democrats have a lot more wiggle room when it comes to who is an electable President. Maybe the most important thing to do is to keep the (edit) incredible momentum going that basically started on Day One and kept on right through the midterms. It feels like there's a once-in-a-generation swell of support that it would be foolish to squander.

Then again, in one of these threads I think Seth posted a surprising poll as far as African-American enthusiasm for the various candidates, and I think Biden was basically off the chart compared to the rest, so.

I am definitely very enamored with Kamal Harris.
The other thing Beto has going for him is he is from a southern state. Usually Democrats have to pick a running mate from a southern state to court some of that vote and not come across as too elitist.

I think Biden would be great and could trounce Trump because he can talk to Trump supporters enough to rattle his base. The risk for me with Biden isn't his age. It is the risk of alienating the host of rising stars in the Democratic party by nominating the establishment in a sea of exciting upstarts. (Klobuchar, Sharice Davids, Beto, Gillum, Abrams, etc.)

I have a secret dream that I don't want to jinx:

Spoiler:

If Kamala Harris wins the nomination and presidency, she has the built in slogan "Nevertheless, she persisted!"

I think Dems have spent decades chasing the idea of trying to take the Republican base, and it hasn't ever worked. Bill Clinton pulled a tiny fraction of them in vastly less partisan times than what we currently live in.

You don't need the Republican base, you need 15% of the 20-30% of the Centrists that exist and don't fall into the hated categorization and labels thrown around of hated Republican or Leftist Democrat.

What makes Kamala Harris stand out from the other 82 trillion other potential candidates?

I like that she rose through politics, starting out as a city prosecutor and working her way up to California Attorney General. While politics matter in those positions, you don't get there without being super bright, and the ability to negotiate with both colleagues and opponents for fair results. And she was damn good at her job.

I thought her grandstanding at the Kavanaugh confirmation was a pretty big misstep, but overall, she is laser focused on the task at hand, and she does not put up with bullsh*t. She is exactly the kind of politician that would make a great president. I have a lot of confidence that she would be far more aggressive at pursuing her agenda than Obama was.

SpyNavy wrote:

You don't need the Republican base, you need 15% of the 20-30% of the Centrists that exist and don't fall into the hated categorization and labels thrown around of hated Republican or Leftist Democrat.

No. You need a candidate that gives even just a fraction of the 40% who didn't vote a reason to do so this time around. Catering to centrists yet again is exactly what Democrats must not do.

I'm not even American and I've got my Lebowski 2020 shirt on proud display. Although I must say, Trumpy's lobster tariffs have put a ton of money in my pocket as a Canadian fisherman. Keep up the ?good? work I guess.

nako wrote:
SpyNavy wrote:

You don't need the Republican base, you need 15% of the 20-30% of the Centrists that exist and don't fall into the hated categorization and labels thrown around of hated Republican or Leftist Democrat.

No. You need a candidate that gives even just a fraction of the 40% who didn't vote a reason to do so this time around. Catering to centrists yet again is exactly what Democrats must not do.

Agree to disagree on your statement. You alienate that group and good luck. A good portion of that 40% non - voter were centrists who couldn't stomach Trump and werent pursued by Clinton. Many of them voted for Obama and would have voted for a similar new face candidate offered by the Democrats. Had the Republicans run any one but Trump it would have been a Reaganesque landslide against Hillary vice the barely squeak out a victory. Had the Dems run anyone but Bernie or Hillary say a next gen Obama instead of someone who thought the Presidency was owed her I believe the margin of win for the Dems would have easily exceeded 10 points. The Dems new guard of Freshmen taking seats are a good example of a Democratic voice that can pivot the middle and appeal to the group that generally decides the Presidency.

SpyNavy wrote:
nako wrote:
SpyNavy wrote:

You don't need the Republican base, you need 15% of the 20-30% of the Centrists that exist and don't fall into the hated categorization and labels thrown around of hated Republican or Leftist Democrat.

No. You need a candidate that gives even just a fraction of the 40% who didn't vote a reason to do so this time around. Catering to centrists yet again is exactly what Democrats must not do.

Agree to disagree on your statement. You alienate that group and good luck. A good portion of that 40% non - voter were centrists who couldn't stomach Trump and werent pursued by Clinton. Many of them voted for Obama and would have voted for a similar new face candidate offered by the Democrats. Had the Republicans run any one but Trump it would have been a Reaganesque landslide against Hillary vice the barely squeak out a victory. Had the Dems run anyone but Bernie or Hillary say a next gen Obama instead of someone who thought the Presidency was owed her I believe the margin of win for the Dems would have easily exceeded 10 points. The Dems new guard of Freshmen taking seats are a good example of a Democratic voice that can pivot the middle and appeal to the group that generally decides the Presidency.

Independents--or centrists as you're calling them--aren't actually independent. They lean heavily to one side or the other, are generally cool and aloof to that party, and increasingly have extremely unfavorable views of the opposite party. In short, they are partisan af, but don't like being labeled as such.

And the 40% of people who didn't vote in 2016 weren't centrists who didn't like either candidate. They were people who simply don't vote.

61.4% of eligible Americans voted in 2016. That turnout was similar to 2012 and just slightly down from the 63.6% that voted in 2008. 2016 actually saw a record 137.5 million votes cast, so the perception that tons of people stayed home really isn't true.

And there's less of a political middle than there was 20 years ago. Views on a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized with the partisan gap more than doubling since 1994, far outstripping differences based on race, age, gender, education level, religious attendance, etc.

The lessons the Democrats should take from 2016 and 2018 are that white people--specifically rural and suburban white men without college degrees--are completely lost to them. There is nothing Democrats can do or say to appeal to those "economically anxious" voters and they shouldn't. Suburban white women are, sadly, still split. And the only group of white people who are reliably Democratic are college-educated city dwellers.

The path to victory for Democrats is to give lip service to the white folks they know will vote Democratic and focus on creating policies that will turnout younger voters and maximize turnout among blacks and Hispanics. (Black turnout dropped 7% in 2016 and Hispanic turnout was flat, and we know that Russia targeted millions of black people on social media "urging them to shun Mrs. Clinton in the general election and either vote for Ms. Stein or stay home.")

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Historically, only three Democrats not from the South have been elected in the 20th+ centuries: FDR (post-Depression), JFK (post-Nixon scandals), and Obama (post-recession). The combination of Trump scandals, Republican scandals, and looming recession might normally be enough to get a Democrat not from the South to win, but now they also have to beat out Russian information ops, Republican information ops, dark money, and voter suppression. I like Beto because he can like a good ol' boy, and that seems to be all that matters to a large chunk of the middle.

Mixolyde wrote:

Historically, only three Democrats not from the South have been elected in the 20th+ centuries: FDR (post-Depression), JFK (post-Nixon scandals), and Obama (post-recession).

Wait, what?

JFK was elected in 1960. Nixon resigned in 1974. The "post-Nixon scandal" president was Carter, who was from Georgia. Was there some Nixon scandal from when he was VP under Eisenhower (1952-1960) that I'm not remembering?

I have my primary preferences right now, and when the time comes I will volunteer, donate, and vote my little heart out for them, but at the end of the day my first choice will be Whoever-Makes-It-Out-Of-The-Primary-With-A-D-Next-To-Their-Name. They really won me over with their campaign slogan "Holy Sh*t Balls, we have to get Donald Trump out of that office!"

Keldar wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Historically, only three Democrats not from the South have been elected in the 20th+ centuries: FDR (post-Depression), JFK (post-Nixon scandals), and Obama (post-recession).

Wait, what?

JFK was elected in 1960. Nixon resigned in 1974. The "post-Nixon scandal" president was Carter, who was from Georgia. Was there some Nixon scandal from when he was VP under Eisenhower (1952-1960) that I'm not remembering?

Awww, f*ck. No, I screwed up the timeline. I still think JFK is a bit of an outlier, but I forget the exact reasoning. His victory over Nixon was pretty narrow.

Mixolyde wrote:
Keldar wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Historically, only three Democrats not from the South have been elected in the 20th+ centuries: FDR (post-Depression), JFK (post-Nixon scandals), and Obama (post-recession).

Wait, what?

JFK was elected in 1960. Nixon resigned in 1974. The "post-Nixon scandal" president was Carter, who was from Georgia. Was there some Nixon scandal from when he was VP under Eisenhower (1952-1960) that I'm not remembering?

Awww, f*ck. No, I screwed up the timeline. I still think JFK is a bit of an outlier, but I forget the exact reasoning. His victory over Nixon was pretty narrow.

There were plenty of reasons why he was an outlier. He was a Catholic in a time when that wasn't perceived as a good thing, and yeah... he won by about 0.17%. He also refused to authorize anti-Soviet false flag operations which were being pushed for. Just before he was assassinated he indicated he wanted the US to somehow get out of Vietnam. His continued reluctance to send our military into combat and support of the civil rights movement didn't make the establishment very happy. Those things indicate to me that he wasn't quite 'one of them'.

Right, JFK was a pretty weird one. My point being, you can get a Democrat not from the south elected, but it takes some exceptional circumstances.

Mixolyde wrote:

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Political scientists have shown for a while now that economic anxiety is tied to partisanship. All these down trodden folks (Hillbilly Elegy, etc) are more optimistic about the economy, even though nothing concrete has changed for them, and is arguably worse given Trump's fiscal/social policies.

Top_Shelf wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Political scientists have shown for a while now that economic anxiety is tied to partisanship. All these down trodden folks (Hillbilly Elegy, etc) are more optimistic about the economy, even though nothing concrete has changed for them, and is arguably worse given Trump's fiscal/social policies.

We all know that 'economic anxiety' isn't a thing, it's a euphemism. I really feel that it would be worse for the democratic party to win by embracing them than to lose by alienating them. I'm not generally a fan of purity tests, and "Not inclusive of explicit racism" is one I'm ok with.

fangblackbone wrote:

I am definitely very enamored with Kamal Harris.
The other thing Beto has going for him is he is from a southern state. Usually Democrats have to pick a running mate from a southern state to court some of that vote and not come across as too elitist.

I think Biden would be great and could trounce Trump because he can talk to Trump supporters enough to rattle his base. The risk for me with Biden isn't his age. It is the risk of alienating the host of rising stars in the Democratic party by nominating the establishment in a sea of exciting upstarts. (Klobuchar, Sharice Davids, Beto, Gillum, Abrams, etc.)

I have a secret dream that I don't want to jinx:

Spoiler:

If Kamala Harris wins the nomination and presidency, she has the built in slogan "Nevertheless, she persisted!"

I believe that was actually Warren, but Harris has also had a number of strong moments pushing back against similar bullsh*t.

Zona wrote:

I have my primary preferences right now, and when the time comes I will volunteer, donate, and vote my little heart out for them, but at the end of the day my first choice will be Whoever-Makes-It-Out-Of-The-Primary-With-A-D-Next-To-Their-Name. They really won me over with their campaign slogan "Holy Sh*t Balls, we have to get Donald Trump out of that office!"

Nailed it.

thrawn82 wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Political scientists have shown for a while now that economic anxiety is tied to partisanship. All these down trodden folks (Hillbilly Elegy, etc) are more optimistic about the economy, even though nothing concrete has changed for them, and is arguably worse given Trump's fiscal/social policies.

We all know that 'economic anxiety' isn't a thing, it's a euphemism. I really feel that it would be worse for the democratic party to win by embracing them than to lose by alienating them. I'm not generally a fan of purity tests, and "Not inclusive of explicit racism" is one I'm ok with.

Eh, from what I've seen it's a complicated question and a person's response to it probably says more about them than it does about the facts, but the question is moot. The enthusiasm from so many places is amazing. There's no reason to funk up what's happening. You ride this wave as far as it will take you.

And probably nominate a woman so there's no bubble-bursting scandal in the middle of the campaign.

zeroKFE wrote:

Harris has also had a number of strong moments pushing back against similar bullsh*t.

Not to mention motherf*ckers.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Political scientists have shown for a while now that economic anxiety is tied to partisanship. All these down trodden folks (Hillbilly Elegy, etc) are more optimistic about the economy, even though nothing concrete has changed for them, and is arguably worse given Trump's fiscal/social policies.

We all know that 'economic anxiety' isn't a thing, it's a euphemism. I really feel that it would be worse for the democratic party to win by embracing them than to lose by alienating them. I'm not generally a fan of purity tests, and "Not inclusive of explicit racism" is one I'm ok with.

Eh, from what I've seen it's a complicated question and a person's response to it probably says more about them than it does about the facts, but the question is moot. The enthusiasm from so many places is amazing. There's no reason to funk up what's happening. You ride this wave as far as it will take you.

And probably nominate a woman so there's no bubble-bursting scandal in the middle of the campaign.

Oh God, so much this. Not only is it time we elected a woman, but I'm assuming most men have some history of sexual harassment/assault in their past and we do not need that to submarine a candidate. And yes, I recognize that our current president admitted/bragged about it and still got elected but still.

Docjoe wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

The number one predictor of counties that flipped from Obama to Trump was the presence of an opiod crisis. Granted, that is a mostly white people problem, but I think a Democrat can work with that and flip them back. Those people are stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of addiction with worsening economic prospects. Granted, their blame of economic issues on minorities and immigrants is misplaced, but the feeling of hopelessness with the status quo is still there regardless. I think a Democrat that can appeal to ending the cycles of addiction, economic malaise and other hopelessness issues can break through to whites and minorities.

Political scientists have shown for a while now that economic anxiety is tied to partisanship. All these down trodden folks (Hillbilly Elegy, etc) are more optimistic about the economy, even though nothing concrete has changed for them, and is arguably worse given Trump's fiscal/social policies.

We all know that 'economic anxiety' isn't a thing, it's a euphemism. I really feel that it would be worse for the democratic party to win by embracing them than to lose by alienating them. I'm not generally a fan of purity tests, and "Not inclusive of explicit racism" is one I'm ok with.

Eh, from what I've seen it's a complicated question and a person's response to it probably says more about them than it does about the facts, but the question is moot. The enthusiasm from so many places is amazing. There's no reason to funk up what's happening. You ride this wave as far as it will take you.

And probably nominate a woman so there's no bubble-bursting scandal in the middle of the campaign.

Oh God, so much this. Not only is it time we elected a woman, but I'm assuming most men have some history of sexual harassment/assault in their past and we do not need that to submarine a candidate. And yes, I recognize that our current president admitted/bragged about it and still got elected but still.

But we explicitly don;t want to be the party that is proud of our representatives being sexual predators. It is a good way to contrast ourselves with our opposition.