[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 this *is* like 2016, it's in the bag for Biden: Cable News Is Covering Biden As Much As Every Other Democratic Candidate Combined. Some prophecies are self-fulfilling.

News organizations increasing their coverage of a candidate with the highest name recognition right before and right after they officially announce? Who's ever heard of such a crazy thing?

538 wrote:

Most candidates get a bump in media coverage around the time they announce that they’re running, but for some candidates — like former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who was mentioned in about 870 clips in the week after he declared his candidacy but has recently been getting about a quarter of that level of coverage — that bump can quickly fade. For others, like Sanders, it can be the start of more sustained run of higher media attention. We’re already seeing less cable news coverage of Biden this week compared to the week that he announced, but he started at such a high peak that even a 34 percent drop has still left him on top.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

If this *is* like 2016, it's in the bag for Biden: Cable News Is Covering Biden As Much As Every Other Democratic Candidate Combined. Some prophecies are self-fulfilling.

News organizations increasing their coverage of a candidate with the highest name recognition right before and right after they officially announce? Who's ever heard of such a crazy thing?

538 wrote:

Most candidates get a bump in media coverage around the time they announce that they’re running, but for some candidates — like former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who was mentioned in about 870 clips in the week after he declared his candidacy but has recently been getting about a quarter of that level of coverage — that bump can quickly fade. For others, like Sanders, it can be the start of more sustained run of higher media attention. We’re already seeing less cable news coverage of Biden this week compared to the week that he announced, but he started at such a high peak that even a 34 percent drop has still left him on top.

lol, the point is if you're going to compare this to 2016, one of the big stories was the free advertising Trump got from all that coverage.

If the media is going to play a role in the fortunes of one of the weaker polling candidates, I think it's less likely to be a Trump bump than a Dean Scream.

edit: just saw this: Marianne Williamson reaches donor threshold for Dem debates

Who is she?

If you listened to Williamson’s speech without knowing anything about her or her work, you’d be forgiven for assuming she sounded less like a presidential candidate than like a New Age-style spiritual leader of sorts, because that’s exactly what she is. A world-famous spiritual leader and author of New Age tomes such as A Woman’s Worth and A Return to Love (the latter of which was plugged by none other than the high priestess of the genre, Oprah Winfrey), the brassy, straight-talking, highly charismatic Williamson has attracted fans all over the world, including celebrities like Katy Perry, Kim Kardashian, Nicole Richie, and Laura Dern. To a degree, she’s something of an antecedent to Goop, albeit sans the plugs for jade vagina eggs and with more sensible pantsuits and casual references to Jesus.

If anyone's going to pull a Trump this time around, it'll probably be someone with something less politics and more pop culture like Trump had, something like an Oprah endorsement. Heck, even Obama needed the Oprah endorsement.

Equal parts fascinating and frightening.

Politico: Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country
The liberal firebrand draws nods and even a few cheers on a trip through rural West Virginia.

KERMIT, W. Va. — It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president — some wearing MAGA stickers — nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren.

The sighting alone of a Democratic presidential candidate in this town of fewer than 400 people — in a county where more than four in five voters cast their ballot for Trump in 2016 — was unusual. Warren’s team was apprehensive about how she’d be received.

About 150 people gathered at the Kermit Fire & Rescue Headquarters Station to hear the Massachusetts senator and former Harvard professor talk about what she wants to do to fight the opioid epidemic. Trump-supporting college students in baggy t-shirts, housewives in pearls, and the fire chief dressed in uniform joined liberal retirees wearing rainbow “Persist” shirts and teachers with six-figure student loan debt.

Kermit is one of the epicenters of the opioid addiction epidemic. The toll is visible. The community center is shuttered. Fire trucks are decades old. When Warren asked people at the beginning of the event to raise their hands if they knew somebody who’s been “caught in the grips of addiction,” most hands went up.

“That’s why I’m here today,” she said.

Elizabeth Warren Says No To Fox News Town Hall

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will not participate in a town hall on Fox News, saying Tuesday that she turned down an invite to go on the conservative network.

“Fox News is a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists ― it’s designed to turn us against each other, risking life & death consequences, to provide cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class,” Warren wrote in a series of tweets.

She said Fox News tries to sell itself as a “reputable news outlet” by mixing its “bigotry, racism, and outright lies” with some legitimate journalism in order to bring in ad money.

“A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it’s safe to buy ads on Fox ― no harm to their brand or reputation (spoiler: it’s not),” she said. “I won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in order to see our candidates ― especially when Fox will make even more money adding our valuable audience to their ratings numbers.”

I have mixed feelings on the FOX news thing. I agree with both Bernie and Warren. I feel that in order to reach people who wouldn't ordinarily be caught dead in any "liberal" environments, you have to go to them...even if it means the one and only "news" channel they watch. At the same time, I agree with Warren that FOX is making more money off of their coddling of various sorts of bigotry. Of course, maybe it's a both/and type of thing based on the strengths and personalities of each candidate.

bekkilyn wrote:

I have mixed feelings on the FOX news thing. I agree with both Bernie and Warren. I feel that in order to reach people who wouldn't ordinarily be caught dead in any "liberal" environments, you have to go to them...even if it means the one and only "news" channel they watch. At the same time, I agree with Warren that FOX is making more money off of their coddling of various sorts of bigotry. Of course, maybe it's a both/and type of thing based on the strengths and personalities of each candidate.

People who wouldn't ordinarily be caught dead in any "liberal" environments aren't going to be voting in the Democratic primary. Heck, If they're a regular consumer of Fox News they probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat ever.

Democratic candidates would be far better served trying to appeal to and motivate their existing base than always trying to chase the mythical white voter who, even though they're indoctrinated by Fox News and conservative media daily, are going to somehow snap out of it and cast their vote for a Democrat in November 2020.

OG_slinger wrote:

Democratic candidates would be far better served trying to appeal to and motivate their existing base than always trying to chase the mythical white voter who, even though they're indoctrinated by Fox News and conservative media daily, are going to somehow snap out of it and cast their vote for a Democrat in November 2020.

They should also work on getting those people who don't vote out there. I honestly have no idea what the magic formula is but dammit people need to vote!

OG_slinger wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

I have mixed feelings on the FOX news thing. I agree with both Bernie and Warren. I feel that in order to reach people who wouldn't ordinarily be caught dead in any "liberal" environments, you have to go to them...even if it means the one and only "news" channel they watch. At the same time, I agree with Warren that FOX is making more money off of their coddling of various sorts of bigotry. Of course, maybe it's a both/and type of thing based on the strengths and personalities of each candidate.

People who wouldn't ordinarily be caught dead in any "liberal" environments aren't going to be voting in the Democratic primary. Heck, If they're a regular consumer of Fox News they probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat ever.

Democratic candidates would be far better served trying to appeal to and motivate their existing base than always trying to chase the mythical white voter who, even though they're indoctrinated by Fox News and conservative media daily, are going to somehow snap out of it and cast their vote for a Democrat in November 2020.

There are those who aren't going to be swayed no matter what, but there are also a bunch of people who simply need to be educated and they watch FOX too. This isn't just about the primary. These people will be voting in the general election too regardless of which Democratic candidate wins the primary, and if they don't like Trump, then who are they going to vote for? Maybe the Democrat if they believe he or she will help them economically or in some other way.

Strategically, it's a move that makes sense for Warren. Everyone is going to have a hard time standing out in the clown car of the Democratic primary debates, but she found a way to do it. By not appearing in the Fox debate as a matter of principle, she's likely raised her standing with Democrats who vote in the primary. By appearing on Fox, she gets a chance to pitch her message to non-Democrats, yes, but if she gets the nomination, she'll have plenty of other opportunities to do that. She's sacrificing this one chance to appeal to those voters in the hope that it gives her many more chances in the future.

farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Democratic candidates would be far better served trying to appeal to and motivate their existing base than always trying to chase the mythical white voter who, even though they're indoctrinated by Fox News and conservative media daily, are going to somehow snap out of it and cast their vote for a Democrat in November 2020.

They should also work on getting those people who don't vote out there. I honestly have no idea what the magic formula is but dammit people need to vote!

When people believe they have no one to vote FOR, then they stay home. Many people just aren't interested in simply defeating Trump or whatever other GOP person is running. If they don't feel they are voting for someone who is going to make positive changes that actually affect *them*, then it's all just politics and who cares because there is nothing they can really do (in their minds). People here on this forum and other places can rant about that all they want, but it's not going to change the reality.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Strategically, it's a move that makes sense for Warren. Everyone is going to have a hard time standing out in the clown car of the Democratic primary debates, but she found a way to do it. By not appearing in the Fox debate as a matter of principle, she's likely raised her standing with Democrats who vote in the primary. By appearing on Fox, she gets a chance to pitch her message to non-Democrats, yes, but if she gets the nomination, she'll have plenty of other opportunities to do that. She's sacrificing this one chance to appeal to those voters in the hope that it gives her many more chances in the future.

This is a good point. Plus, her being on FOX gives them more time to make her more of a target concerning that whole "Pocahontas" thing.

The people who think "it's just politics" simply are not reachable. If the past two years isn't sufficient to penetrate their privilege blanket, there is nothing at all that will. Much like the entrenched Trump supporter, trying to reach those people is a waste of time and effort, and they should not be courted as potential supporters. They are as lost as the other.

Great statement by Warren. Still mad that she deferred to Hillary in 2016. She didn't have the 20 years of propaganda built up against her and probably would have won.

Hopefully she didn't miss her shot.

bekkilyn wrote:

There are those who aren't going to be swayed no matter what, but there are also a bunch of people who simply need to be educated and they watch FOX too. This isn't just about the primary. These people will be voting in the general election too regardless of which Democratic candidate wins the primary, and if they don't like Trump, then who are they going to vote for? Maybe the Democrat if they believe he or she will help them economically or in some other way.

Yeah, I honestly don't believe that there's a significant amount of the 3.5ish million white people (about 3 million of which are over the age of 55) who watch Fox News' primetime lineup every night--Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham--who are really moderates who just need a bit of education before they'll cast their vote for a Democrat. They have plenty of news sources to choose from and they've chosen the one that fellates Trump nightly and whispers in their ear that they're right to believe that black, Hispanics, and other minorities are the source of all their problems.

Even if you just focus on Fox's actual news programming, you're only talking about 1.5 million regular viewers who are as white and conservative as Fox's primetime, just slightly younger.

I'd be more inclined to think there's perhaps a few people in that audience who could be saved, but, again, they have plenty of choices to get their news from and I seriously doubt they'd choose Fox if they didn't also happen to agree with the other programming that the channel airs.

Either way, there's not enough to merit any Democratic primary candidate going out of their way to court them or courting them at all.

OG_slinger wrote:

Yeah, I honestly don't believe that there's a significant amount of the 3.5ish million white people (about 3 million of which are over the age of 55) who watch Fox News' primetime lineup every night--Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham--who are really moderates who just need a bit of education before they'll cast their vote for a Democrat.

Considering the last election came down to, what, around 100,000 votes spread across three states, "significant" is a not a semantic question, but a mathematical one.

I'd be more inclined to think there's perhaps a few people in that audience who could be saved, but, again, they have plenty of choices to get their news from and I seriously doubt they'd choose Fox if they didn't also happen to agree with the other programming that the channel airs.

Speaking of semantics, I think this is what a lot of the disagreement in this thread (and others) boils down to: it's not about winning the election, it's about how people feel. I think there's a lot of people who look at politics as a matter of the saved vs. the damned, and don't even *want* the votes of people who voted for Trump even if they could get them.

I think a lot of the talk among high-information voters isn't so much about elections as it is about emotions.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Considering the last election came down to, what, around 100,000 votes spread across three states, "significant" is a not a semantic question, but a mathematical one.

See this is where my thoughts are going. Many of those people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama. I'm also willing to bet many of them watch FOX.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Considering the last election came down to, what, around 100,000 votes spread across three states, "significant" is a not a semantic question, but a mathematical one.

See this is where my thoughts are going. Many of those people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama. I'm also willing to bet many of them watch FOX.

But the point stands there's nothing to gain by a Democratic primary debate on Fox. Now if she wins the nomination then yes, maybe go on Fox to convince some of those conservatives that might be convinced.

If memory serves the actual 2016 debate was on OTA Fox though, not Fox News.

bekkilyn wrote:

See this is where my thoughts are going. Many of those people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama. I'm also willing to bet many of them watch FOX.

And I'm willing to bet that the 65 year-old white guy who chooses to relax after a long day by watching Hannity at 9 PM isn't going to vote for anyone with a D behind their name...ever. That's backed up by academic studies that show that people who watch even small amounts of Fox News--like three minutes a week--are more likely to support Republican candidates even if they themselves identify as a Democrat.

In general Fox News viewers skew hard right ideologically and there's fewer moderates or independents in its viewership than other news networks.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/QVyx31T.png)

If Democratic candidates want to get 100,000 people to vote for them in 2020 then they'd be much better off promoting themselves on news channels that actually have moderate and independent viewers and not give attention and credibility to a literal propaganda channel.

@sahilkapur wrote:

In New Hampshire, Joe Biden predicts that once President Trump is out of office, Republicans will have “an epiphany” and work with Democrats toward consensus.

Oh Joe.........

I'm increasingly convinced that Biden didn't pay attention to a single f*cking thing during his two terms as VP.

OG_slinger wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/QVyx31T.png)

If Democratic candidates want to get 100,000 people to vote for them in 2020 then they'd be much better off promoting themselves on news channels that actually have moderate and independent viewers and not give attention and credibility to a literal propaganda channel.

According to that chart, if I'm doing the math right (23+10=33?), one-third of Fox News viewers are moderate or liberal.

That's...that's honestly way more than I would have guessed.

I have a feeling that I'm not alone in being surprised the Moderate/Liberal demographics of Fox News is one out of every three viewers.

My parents watch FOX News because they are conservative and that's the only source they kinda trust. My Mother-in-law watches so she can see first hand the bullsh*t being fed. 1/3 viewers checks out.

(I do not recommend this strategy, can't imagine that's good for her blood pressure. She keeps her media diet varied though, so at least I don't think she's going to accidentally indoctrinate herself.)

Can't remember if I read it here or elsewhere, but it was about, probably mostly women, whose husbands only watched Fox, so that was the only TV news/Hannity propaganda they watched too. Even if they weren't particularly conservative themselves.

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to campaign on Fox. I thought Sanders did surprisingly well in that setting. But it is likely not important for the primary - even if some moderates/liberals mostly watch Fox, I would imagine most of them are not the enthusiastic voters showing up for a primary.

Prederick wrote:
@sahilkapur wrote:

In New Hampshire, Joe Biden predicts that once President Trump is out of office, Republicans will have “an epiphany” and work with Democrats toward consensus.

Oh Joe.........

Does he honestly think that if there is a white, male Dwmocrat that suddenly the Republicans will go back to business as usual? Or, at least Clinton-era obstruction and not Obama- era Obstruction? That is literally insane.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm increasingly convinced that Biden didn't pay attention to a single f*cking thing during his two terms as VP.

Assuming that any Democrat who says anything of this sort is an idiot often was my first impulse as well... but maybe it's the wrong approach, because it assumes that they actually want to do good. I'm increasingly becoming suspicious that they're just hiding behind a veneer of "bipartisanship" when what they really want generally aligns more with what the Republicans are already doing than what would be good for the American people.

And here I thought Biden was friends with Mitch McConnell, so he would know that the Republicans were doing just fine at being obstructive when Obama was president.

Wait, maybe being close friends with McConnell is part of the problem.

If someone backed Trump and now dislikes him but STILL expects someone to "convince" them to vote D or they stay home I'm perfectly fine with that person staying home on voting day.

All I know is that I am going to be SO MAD if I have to vote for "creepy Joe" due to all the crap, the abortion thing in AL only being the most recent. Of course, Biden is Catholic if I remember correctly, so who knows if he would recant on supporting pro-choice issues as a presidential vs. vice-presidential candidate.

bekkilyn wrote:

All I know is that I am going to be SO MAD if I have to vote for "creepy Joe" due to all the crap, the abortion thing in AL only being the most recent. Of course, Biden is Catholic if I remember correctly, so who knows if he would recant on supporting pro-choice issues as a presidential vs. vice-presidential candidate.

He seemed pretty clear on his position during the VP debates against Ryan.