[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.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
muraii wrote:

Now I want a movie called CTRL-Z about IT professionals who must save the world from zombies or something it's not really a well-formed idea just you know sometimes I go on a typing bender and thirty words later I'm all like what am I even writing right now anyway there's a joke I don't have the wherewithal nor skill to make have fun.

That's a hilarious idea. I'm surprised it's not already an indie game.

In case of zombie attack, call 0118 999 881 999 119 725.

3

Jonman wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
muraii wrote:

Now I want a movie called CTRL-Z about IT professionals who must save the world from zombies or something it's not really a well-formed idea just you know sometimes I go on a typing bender and thirty words later I'm all like what am I even writing right now anyway there's a joke I don't have the wherewithal nor skill to make have fun.

That's a hilarious idea. I'm surprised it's not already an indie game.

In case of zombie attack, call 0118 999 881 999 119 725.

3

IMAGE(https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ecf46c6a35492a9a60bc7755dde6c4b/tenor.gif?itemid=4832472)

A time travel / zombie apocalypse film where IT workers build a time machine out of spare computer parts to travel back and prevent the initial outbreak (which they also caused somehow).

Seth wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Whether or not it becomes an issue in the campaign, I'd encourage you all to read through some of the articles here on Warren, DNA testing, and tribal membership from a Native American perspective.

Personally, I'm bothered enough by this issue and by Warren's poor historical stance on queer issues that I don't anticipate supporting her in the primaries. I would support her in the general election, however.

For me, I am uncomfortable with her previous affiliation as a Republican and her neoliberal outlook on how wealth inequality can be managed. She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. Im not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and im not entirely sure that it’s what we need. .

I hope that my coolness toward Warren isn’t read as misogyny, and I hope that it isn’t subconscious misogyny. I’ll continue to self crit on the issue.

I’m also wary of Sanders age, but 80 isn’t that old for rich people with top end healthcare. It’s much less of a concern for me than Warren’s policy issues. Again, to reiterate, I would be ecstatic to have either candidate in the 2020 general election, but I haven’t ordered from the menu yet so I can be both picky and unrealistic.

Some more thoughts on the pros and cons of law professors as Presidents.

While I would certainly vote for her in the General election, I'd personally rather she remain in the Senate

538 has an interesting graphic on how the likely Dems of 2020 appeal the various poles of the party.

IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/silver-DEMLANES-PART1.png?w=1024)

Looks like Kamala Harris is the move. Kirsten Gillibrand should get support from the DoD for that graphic.

I wish they also include %s.

Poor Gillibrand.

Wouldn't it be funny if John Kasich and Sherrod Brown faced off in the general election.

I would like to see Obama and Hillary Clinton added to that graphic to get a sense of how it was during their elections and where things have shifted.

Nevin73 wrote:

Looks like Kamala Harris is the move. Kirsten Gillibrand should get support from the DoD for that graphic.

I wish they also include %s.

The article is more so about the groups (e.g. The Left) than any candidate.

In the article Silver indicates that there will be future articles going into each candidate and presumably how he gauged any given candidate with any given group. I do not think the ratings necessarily correspond to a percentage support in polls, but I could just as easily be wrong.

Next year, for the first time, I'll have to decide which presidential party primary to vote in. But I don't expect any Republican to challenge Trump in the primary, so it's probably a moo point.

Hangdog wrote:

538 has an interesting graphic on how the likely Dems of 2020 appeal the various poles of the party.

IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/silver-DEMLANES-PART1.png?w=1024)

Based on this, one can only assume that Gillibrand will be the eventual nominee.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Hangdog wrote:

538 has an interesting graphic on how the likely Dems of 2020 appeal the various poles of the party.

IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/silver-DEMLANES-PART1.png?w=1024)

Based on this, one can only assume that Gillibrand will be the eventual nominee.

LOL

You're probably right though.

In a 1 vs 1 fight against any of the others maybe - or in a Ranked Vote system. But in a 10+ Free for all it seems like you just need to have a group that loves you. Being everyones second choice gets you nowhere.

Shadout wrote:

In a 1 vs 1 fight against any of the others maybe - or in a Ranked Vote system. But in a 10+ Free for all it seems like you just need to have a group that loves you. Being everyones second choice gets you nowhere.

Tell that to John Kerry!

Well the loyalists set the rules and control the convention. I think Klobuchar vets it.

I didn't know that hispanics/asians was a voting block?!

In the the second half of the article he discusses the rationale for this, and other group details. Like, should "Women" be listed as a separate bloc? (Spoiler alert: not really.) As usual, Nate Silver's analysis is insightful.

Tulsi Gabbard throws her hat in the ring. Yech.

Tanglebones wrote:

Tulsi Gabbard throws her hat in the ring. Yech.

I don't know her, what's there to yech about?

Archangel wrote:

Like, should "Women" be listed as a separate bloc? (Spoiler alert: not really.)

Considering how many white women voted for Trump, I’d say ‘no’. You’d think that’d be pretty obvious.

nako wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Tulsi Gabbard throws her hat in the ring. Yech.

I don't know her, what's there to yech about?

Anti gay, pro Assad in Syria, somehow called a progressive despite this

Tanglebones wrote:
nako wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Tulsi Gabbard throws her hat in the ring. Yech.

I don't know her, what's there to yech about?

Anti gay, pro Assad in Syria, somehow called a progressive despite this

She endorsed Bernie last go around. So far as I can tell that seems to be the sum and total of it.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Hangdog wrote:

538 has an interesting graphic on how the likely Dems of 2020 appeal the various poles of the party.

IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/silver-DEMLANES-PART1.png?w=1024)

Based on this, one can only assume that Gillibrand will be the eventual nominee.

She is the Five-sided One! Everything aligns perfectly with her. Mildly excite our insipid passions, O Even-handed One!

I'm lightly atingle over the genially benign thought of a Gillibrand presidency.

Spoiler:

I think you could do a lot worse then having Gillibrand as the candidate, and I think she would make a good president. I only give it like 50/50 she runs at all though, her political instincts are fantastic and it's already a crowded room.

Julián Castro enters the race.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Hangdog wrote:

538 has an interesting graphic on how the likely Dems of 2020 appeal the various poles of the party.

IMAGE(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/silver-DEMLANES-PART1.png?w=1024)

Based on this, one can only assume that Gillibrand will be the eventual nominee.

She is the Five-sided One! Everything aligns perfectly with her. Mildly excite our insipid passions, O Even-handed One!

I hear she's polling well in The Concordant Domain of the Outlands.

Zona wrote:

I'm lightly atingle over the genially benign thought of a Gillibrand presidency.

Spoiler:

I think you could do a lot worse then having Gillibrand as the candidate, and I think she would make a good president. I only give it like 50/50 she runs at all though, her political instincts are fantastic and it's already a crowded room.

I believe the scuttlebutt is that Gillibrand lost ground with big money donors during the Al Franken harassment business, and that may have chilled her ambitions a bit.

I was being somewhat silly, but that graphic really does make me think that Gillibrand has a solid chance of being the nominees; I'd kinda written her off before.

Put simply: no one is enthusiastic about her, but no one dislikes her, either. Every other candidate except Harris has at least one area that dips below the median between most support and least support. Gillibrand is the ideal compromise candidate.

Except for Harris, who I think would lose out to Gillibrand because of the usual fantasy hand wringing about peeling away right-leaning independent voters and how those people won't vote for a black woman. It's a dead end goal anyway, but I expect it to be a headwind Harris has to fight all through the primaries.

I would love a Harris/Gillibrand 2020 sticker.