[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.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

If it's about pure pragmatism, the Democratic candidate wins if they replicate Hillary's map plus Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, right?

So if pure pragmatism is the question, the answer is if someone can pull that off, or if there's an easier path to 270.

I'm pretty sure it's not, though. If the last couple of years have shown anything, it's that politics shouldn't be about pure pragmatism. That's how you get national emergencies declared because you don't like the decision made by people who are empowered to make that decision.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

If it's about pure pragmatism, the Democratic candidate wins if they replicate Hillary's map plus Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, right?

So if pure pragmatism is the question, the answer is if someone can pull that off, or if there's an easier path to 270.

I'm pretty sure it's not, though. If the last couple of years have shown anything, it's that politics shouldn't be about pure pragmatism. That's how you get national emergencies declared because you don't like the decision made by people who are empowered to make that decision.

Maybe, maybe not. (edit) Like I said in the next paragraph after that: "I think unity plays into a whole bunch of other questions..."

Looking over at the predictions thread, what I think trichy is looking for is reassurance that this doesn't make a Trump second term more probable. So if we're just talking about getting Trump out of the White House, it's a matter of getting to 270.

What's relevant is why you think a certain candidate has an easier or harder path to that number. That comes down to what states you think they can win and what states you think they can't.

Like, Hillary won the popular vote by three million or something? Yet it was only 107,000 votes in three key states that cost the Democrats the White House.

I think Sanders will win the nomination, and I don't think he has the capability to get to 270. He performed poorly among minorities (which everyone agrees are critical to a candidate's success), and he performed poorly among independents (which are critical to a candidate's success). His campaign also had reports of gender pay inequality and sexual harassment, his most ardent supporters have a reputation almost as distasteful as that of MAGA bros, and his age provides a point of attack. I believe he will show himself completely incapable of convincing more moderate voters that he has something to offer them.

Hillary won the popular vote, but lost the EC. I worry Sanders would lose them both, not because more people would vote for Trump, but because less would vote for him.

trichy wrote:

Two possibilities: Either he doesn't win the nomination, and we see a repeat of 2016 in which many of his followers stay home on election day, leading to Trump winning a second term; or he DOES win the nomination, and his message frightens away a lot of independents into either not voting at all or voting for Trump, leading to Trump winning a second term.

I honestly believe the only way we keep that nightmare currently squatting in the Oval Office from extending his stay is by unifying as a party behind a candidate. There are not many candidates I feel have that ability. He's DEFINITELY not one of them.

So Democrats need to unify behind a candidate that people who are not Democrats approve of....so why are they Democrats?

trichy wrote:

I think Sanders will win the nomination, and I don't think he has the capability to get to 270. He performed poorly among minorities (which everyone agrees are critical to a candidate's success), and he performed poorly among independents (which are critical to a candidate's success). His campaign also had reports of gender pay inequality and sexual harassment, his most ardent supporters have a reputation almost as distasteful as that of MAGA bros, and his age provides a point of attack. I believe he will show himself completely incapable of convincing more moderate voters that he has something to offer them.

Hillary won the popular vote, but lost the EC. I worry Sanders would lose them both, not because more people would vote for Trump, but because less would vote for him.

I guess I feel different because when I look at the map, I don't see those things putting any of Hillary's states into play but Virginia. I don't see any candidate but Klobuchar with a better chance to pick up WI/MI/PA. Although there are so many I may be forgetting some of them!

It's entirely possible less people would vote for Bernie than for Hillary. It just that the presidency is such a matter of *where* those votes are, it doesn't matter if all we're talking about is the White House. Hillary wound up with a *ton* of wasted votes. Bernie could get, like, two million less votes, but if they come from states that don't swing, he could cruise to victory.

The thing that would worry me most is Virginia.

farley3k wrote:
trichy wrote:

Two possibilities: Either he doesn't win the nomination, and we see a repeat of 2016 in which many of his followers stay home on election day, leading to Trump winning a second term; or he DOES win the nomination, and his message frightens away a lot of independents into either not voting at all or voting for Trump, leading to Trump winning a second term.

I honestly believe the only way we keep that nightmare currently squatting in the Oval Office from extending his stay is by unifying as a party behind a candidate. There are not many candidates I feel have that ability. He's DEFINITELY not one of them.

So Democrats need to unify behind a candidate that people who are not Democrats approve of....so why are they Democrats?

It's pretty simple. If Democrats don't unify behind a candidate, and Republicans do, we get more of what we have now. Indefinitely. That means AT LEAST one more uber right-wing SCJ. That means more dead children at the border. That means more rolling back of transgender rights. That means more voter suppression, poverty, drug deaths, income inequality, everything.

trichy wrote:

It's pretty simple. If Democrats don't unify behind a candidate, and Republicans do, we get more of what we have now.

But you also said that bit about scaring away independents. What if Democrats unify behind Bernie this time? Is that ok because they are unified or is it bad because independents will not vote for him?

farley3k wrote:
trichy wrote:

It's pretty simple. If Democrats don't unify behind a candidate, and Republicans do, we get more of what we have now.

But you also said that bit about scaring away independents. What if Democrats unify behind Bernie this time? Is that ok because they are unified or is it bad because independents will not vote for him?

If I believed that Democrats WOULD unify behind Bernie, I'd be more optimistic. But I don't think they will. FiveThirtyEight, back during the last primaries, argued that for a Democratic candidate to win, they needed to do well with two out of the three following groups: minorities, women, and Independents. I don't think Bernie will do particularly well with any of them.

farley3k wrote:
trichy wrote:

It's pretty simple. If Democrats don't unify behind a candidate, and Republicans do, we get more of what we have now.

But you also said that bit about scaring away independents. What if Democrats unify behind Bernie this time? Is that ok because they are unified or is it bad because independents will not vote for him?

I think the answer is that it is good but not sufficient.

Personally I like Sanders, i was a supporter of his in 2016. I'm not really even as doom and gloom about his divisiveness as Trichy is, but I'd really prefer a non-male candidate this go round, if they were also non-white that would be a bonus. I like Bernie's policies, i like him as a party leader and an inspiration for more of the AOC style coalition, but I don't really feel like his leftist cred is enough to trump (hehe) the more left leaning women on the current field.

I'm pretty sure Sanders always performed better with minorities than with white voters.

nako wrote:

I'm pretty sure Sanders always performed better with minorities than with white voters.

Not really.

FiveThirtyEight wrote:

Sanders also would need to work to improve his performance with black voters, a crucial demographic in the Democratic primary. In 2016, Clinton and Sanders split the white vote, but she did better among black voters overall, though young black voters trended toward Sanders. 2020 will likely be a whole different ballgame when it comes to courting the black vote. The field has two top-tier contenders who are black — Harris and Booker — and Joe Biden could hold some appeal given that he served as vice president under Barack Obama.

I like Bernie, but the thing is that right now he's the image of the Republican party - an old white male. He also still has the problem with the establishment that he's trying to run as a Democrat without being one (he ran as an Independent again for his Senate seat in 2018).

Given that a lot of the Democratic candidates have started taking Bernie's positions on things (Medicare for all, etc.), I'd rather see someone with similar views who might bring in a more diverse coalition, like Harris.

I am willing to bet Sanders tossed his hat in the ring for the same reason the Biden will, namely that they are polling relatively well.

However that Biden and Sanders have the higher polling numbers I think is misleading as many of the other candidates do not have the same visibility to all potential voters.

I am not sure that either Biden or Sanders will get the nomination when it is all done; at the same time I do think there will be the rancor from 2016 as the prevailing sentament for Democrats seems to be first get rid of Trump.

thrawn82 wrote:

I like Bernie's policies, i like him as a party leader and an inspiration for more of the AOC style coalition, but I don't really feel like his leftist cred is enough to trump (hehe) the more left leaning women on the current field.

A major issue with Bernie is that he's not even a Democrat, let alone a potential leader of the party.

He's just borrowing the structure and organization of the Democratic Party (again) because the party he belongs to doesn't even exist at the national level.

The last thing this country needs is an out-of-touch octogenarian dude who's spent the past 20 years representing a state that whose population is as white as snow (95%) and is so small and rural that its biggest "city" has fewer residents than a single zip code in Los Angeles.

As a Bernie supporter, I was also hoping he’d stay out of this race, but mostly because the DNC is already starting to throw it’s weight behind Harris. The choice has been made, it seems, and I fear that we’re heading for a repeat of 2016.

OG_slinger wrote:

He's just borrowing the structure and organization of the Democratic Party (again) because the party he belongs to doesn't even exist at the national level.

#Socialism

Better Sanders run as a Democrat than as a spoiler. Still, I find it distasteful the way he jumps back into the party when it's convenient and back out when it's not.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Better Sanders run as a Democrat than as a spoiler. Still, I find it distasteful the way he jumps back into the party when it's convenient and back out when it's not.

It's distasteful, but it's the system the Democrats and Republicans set up for themselves. Until ranked choice voting catches on it'll remain a system dominated by two parties. "Joining" the Democrats is the least damaging way he can run. I'd still prefer he didn't this time around though. I'd much rather him throw his support behind one of the already declared candidates. His platform isn't going to be as radically different from everyone else's as it was in 2016.

I think he still thinks he is the one that is going to push socialism through. I think he would do a much better job throwing his support behind several candidates. And I think sadly he is competing with the candidates he inspired who are better at getting youth turnout and bit ticket socialist items into law.

fangblackbone wrote:

I think he still thinks he is the one that is going to push socialism through. I think he would do a much better job throwing his support behind several candidates. And I think sadly he is competing with the candidates he inspired who are better at getting youth turnout and bit ticket socialist items into law.

AOC got her start volunteering for Sanders in 2016, now that she’s practically the most popular politician in the US it will go a loooong way if she throws her support behind him again.

Shouldn't it be the other way when she can run? Wouldn't it be better for her to throw behind someone else?
Mentors want no thanks and take satisfaction when you grow beyond them. Throwing behind Sanders seems like a step back for her to me.

fangblackbone wrote:

Shouldn't it be the other way when she can run? Wouldn't it be better for her to throw behind someone else?
Mentors want no thanks and take satisfaction when you grow beyond them. Throwing behind Sanders seems like a step back for her to me.

She’s ideologically closer to Sanders than any of the other people running and stumped for him in the last presidential election. Of course she’ll support whomever wins the primaries, but I don’t see any reason why she wouldn’t support him in the primaries. Warren, maybe, but it would undermine her own public perception if she chose someone like Biden or Harris over Sanders.

I've been spending time in the deep rural areas of NC and not everybody down here likes Trump even if they would never have voted for Hillary. Heard some folks say some good things about Bernie from time to time, so he could get some of the Republican anti-Trump votes. Not sure why Independents wouldn't vote for him any more or less than they would vote for anyone else.

Maybe it would be good to see who actually wins the primary before overly-worrying about everything. If the primaries are run fairly this time around, then there would be no dispute over who won (or who would've won) and hopefully all candidates and supporters of those candidates will fully lend their support to whoever does win.

bekkilyn wrote:

I've been spending time in the deep rural areas of NC and not everybody down here likes Trump even if they would never have voted for Hillary. Heard some folks say some good things about Bernie from time to time, so he could get some of the Republican anti-Trump votes. Not sure why Independents wouldn't vote for him any more or less than they would vote for anyone else.

Maybe it would be good to see who actually wins the primary before overly-worrying about everything. If the primaries are run fairly this time around, then there would be no dispute over who won (or who would've won) and hopefully all candidates and supporters of those candidates will fully lend their support to whoever does win.

Yup. As they were run fairly last time around too.

I do not like Sanders.
I do not think he would make a good President.
I will not support him in the primary, and will probably donate time &/or money to one or more of his opponents.

If Sanders becomes the Democratic Parties nominee for President I will vote for him so fast it will make your head spin, and do everything I can to drag other people to the polls so they can do the same, because Holy Fu*k Donald Trump is President.

I'm with ->Zona

I like Bernie fine but I'll be campaigning against him in the primary. I don't know for who! But... I think his entering is the wrong move.

That said, if he wins, he wins. I just want to see a united party for 2020.

ruhk wrote:

As a Bernie supporter, I was also hoping he’d stay out of this race, but mostly because the DNC is already starting to throw it’s weight behind Harris. The choice has been made, it seems, and I fear that we’re heading for a repeat of 2016.

Does the DNC decide the candidate or do the voters? The idea that people shouldn't run against Harris because the party leadership want her to win is very distasteful. People should feel free to enter the primary and duke it out for the voters benefit. Let the best candidate win.

Djinn wrote:
ruhk wrote:

As a Bernie supporter, I was also hoping he’d stay out of this race, but mostly because the DNC is already starting to throw it’s weight behind Harris. The choice has been made, it seems, and I fear that we’re heading for a repeat of 2016.

Does the DNC decide the candidate or do the voters? The idea that people shouldn't run against Harris because the party leadership want her to win is very distasteful. People should feel free to enter the primary and duke it out for the voters benefit. Let the best candidate win.

So far as I can tell, this is literally not happening at all, outside of twitter chatter.

Tanglebones wrote:
Djinn wrote:
ruhk wrote:

As a Bernie supporter, I was also hoping he’d stay out of this race, but mostly because the DNC is already starting to throw it’s weight behind Harris. The choice has been made, it seems, and I fear that we’re heading for a repeat of 2016.

Does the DNC decide the candidate or do the voters? The idea that people shouldn't run against Harris because the party leadership want her to win is very distasteful. People should feel free to enter the primary and duke it out for the voters benefit. Let the best candidate win.

So far as I can tell, this is literally not happening at all, outside of twitter chatter.

Please don’t buy into the highlighted rhetoric. We don’t need that again. At all. Super delegates are gone. We’ll see how it shakes out.

Djinn wrote:

Does the DNC decide the candidate or do the voters? The idea that people shouldn't run against Harris because the party leadership want her to win is very distasteful. People should feel free to enter the primary and duke it out for the voters benefit. Let the best candidate win.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t run, but I’m concerned about the consequences of Bernie specifically running. He was wildly popular in 2016 and his platform has only become more mainstream since then due to the younger politicians that he inspired to get involved. He will also get zero support from the DNC (there’s no point arguing whether or not he should, because we all know he won’t get it regardless) and likely won’t be able to get the numbers needed without it. Harris is the presumptive frontrunner assuming Biden doesn’t throw in, so we’ll end up in a position like 2016 where an extremely popular politician with no establishment support is running against an okay politician with a problematic history and establishment support. A lot of people will be pissed and the only person who wins in that circumstance has a name that starts with a “T” and ends with a “RUMP.”

EDIT: when I say establishment support, I’m not implying that the party is rigging things or forcing people’s hands, I’m talking about the raw informational and structural resources that the party can bring to bear behind a candidate. Sanders would have access to it IF he won the primaries, but he’ll have to fight for what scraps they’ll give him during the primaries, just like in 2016.