[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.

Jayhawker wrote:

The issue I had with Bernie last year was that once the nomination was settled, he continued to campaign, at that resulted in the divided DNC we had last year. That resulted in more progressives not voting for HRC than people want to admit.

Everyone take a drink!

ruhk wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

The issue I had with Bernie last year was that once the nomination was settled, he continued to campaign, at that resulted in the divided DNC we had last year. That resulted in more progressives not voting for HRC than people want to admit.

Everyone take a drink! ;)

LOL

Just two more years of reminders!

It would be more helpful if they were reminders from this dimension, the one were Bernie threw his support behind HRC shortly after she became the presumptive candidate, then personally called for her official nomination during the DNC the following July and gave multiple speeches encouraging people to vote for her.

On the other hand, it is pretty cool to know that parallel dimensions are apparently a thing.

ruhk wrote:

It would be more helpful if they were reminders from this dimension, the one were Bernie threw his support behind HRC shortly after she became the presumptive candidate, then personally called for her official nomination during the DNC the following July and gave multiple speeches encouraging people to vote for her.

On the other hand, it is pretty cool to know that parallel dimensions are apparently a thing. ;)

You mean the things he actually did, not the things the Russian bot machine told his former supporters he did? When we look back on that division, it's equally important to remember who was driving the some of the division after the primary results, and why.

Bernie Sanders tuned his base up, and then lost control. Yes, Russian troll farms used this to amplify the discontent. And then real life progressives told America that the Democratic Party could not be trusted, creating an BS situation in which that critical middle voter saw both sides as troubled, the Democrats as undemocratic.

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/116999...

Bernie Sanders doesn't have a realistic path to the Democratic nomination, even with superdelegates excluded, and hasn't had one for more than two months now.

Yet the Vermont senator has remained in the race, and has repeatedly suggested he'll fight it out "until the last vote is cast." Indeed, on Tuesday night he said he still intended to win "a majority of pledged delegates," even though he has to win the remaining contests by enormous margins to pull that off.

Susan Sarandon at the DNC: ‘Bernie has ignited this spark and we’re not letting go’

As Obama speaks, chaos and arrests outside DNC

PHILADELPHIA—As President Barack Obama took the stage at the Democratic National Convention inside the Wells Fargo Center on Wednesday night, a chaotic situation erupted nearby that led to seven arrests.

IMAGE(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/46b7574161c1fbbb1d4d809a43e9539cf3f8b05e/c=321-0-4917-3456/local/-/media/2016/07/28/USATODAY/USATODAY/636053255364969904-XXX-R8R4332.jpg?width=520&height=390&fit=crop)
Bernie Sanders supporter Lisa Rowe protests in downtown Philadelphia during Democratic National Convention on July 28, 2016.

Democrats in chaos as convention opens

Republicans aren’t the only ones with a unity problem.

The Democratic National Convention opens Monday marred by the sudden resignation of its unpopular chairwoman after a series of leaked emails suggested she might have used her office to help Hillary Clinton defeat the insurgent candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

I'm really not a fan of Bernie, hell I agree with you on this issue almost all of the time, but can we please focus on Pre-litigating the 2020 primary, instead of relitigating 2016?

Zona wrote:

I'm really not a fan of Bernie, hell I agree with you on this issue almost all of the time, but can we please focus on Pre-litigating the 2020 primary, instead of relitigating 2016?

I'm all for that. The only reason it came up was that I'm aware that others think that I am against progressives posting negatively against Democratic contenders. I was trying to explain the difference between before a nominee has reached a level that assures their nomination and after. Before, we should all voice our concerns about candidates. After, we should avoid giving the GOP talking points that show the lack of unity on the left.

I think the lack of unity is a positive in most ways. The left should have varied voices with different ideas and solutions. But once the general election starts, unless you don't care who wins, it's pretty important to support the nominees that comes out of the primaries. I just wanted to show what my opinions are based on, since some seem to think it is about some allegiance to establishment politics. It's not. It is about supporting the side that most closely aligns with my views, even if the candidate is not near as left as I would like.

What I like right now is that we are going to have a debate stage with many strong women with smart ideas for how we should proceed from where we are. We can all quibble about which of Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and hopefully, Amy Klobuchar, are the best choice for us. But seriously, we are going to have Democratic debates dominated by women. I think it is going to make for some of the best primary debates we have ever seen.

Sigh, I really don't want to get into this...

Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?

6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in 2016 went on to vote for Trump. 24% of people who voted for Clinton in 2008 went on to vote for McCain. Yes, "Bernie or Bust" people did and do exist, but they were a small minority and a smaller minority than in most other elections. Yes, maybe if all of those people voted for Clinton we wouldn't have Trump in the White House right now, but expecting all 13 million Sanders voters to vote Clinton is unrealistic and blaming Bernie because they didn't is unfair. He did a better job of moving his supporters over to Clinton than Clinton did moving her supporters over to Obama.

Djinn wrote:

Sigh, I really don't want to get into this...

Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?

6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in 2016 went on to vote for Trump. 24% of people who voted for Clinton in 2008 went on to vote for McCain. Yes, "Bernie or Bust" people did and do exist, but they were a small minority and a smaller minority than in most other elections. Yes, maybe if all of those people voted for Clinton we wouldn't have Trump in the White House right now, but expecting all 13 million Sanders voters to vote Clinton is unrealistic and blaming Bernie because they didn't is unfair. He did a better job of moving his supporters over to Clinton than Clinton did moving her supporters over to Obama.

It's more complicated than just the votes of Bernie or Bust voters. The events at the DNC affected the way undecided voters felt about the Democratic Party. Middle of the Road voters avoid chaos. While that should have meant an easy win for HRC, the DNC had actual, on the ground, chaos surrounding charges of a rigged primary and undemocratic practices.

Also, comparing Democrats willingness to vote for McCain to their willingness to vote for Trump is a pretty massive false equivalence.

This election is even more complicated, because I think the odds of facing off with Trump is well under 50%. And how Trump's resignation or impeachment plays out will really impact how the democratic primaries go, but we have no idea how or what will go down.

Bernie was easily defeated by Hillary's dirty tricks, but Trump would have played by the Marquis of Queensbury rules if he'd been nominee :eyeroll:

Moving on, 538 is doing a podcast series as candidates announce, talking about their possible paths to the nomination. So far they've done Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren.

538 has the candidate reviews in article form too if you prefer to read. Very insightful articles. They make a good argument for Harris having the most potential of any of the candidates.

The irony is that if Bernie *did* make the difference, then it was a difference worth making. I'm old so I eventually came around to rooting for Hillary because screw what happens post 2020, I'll take four years of stable decline at this point, but for everyone else, if Trump loses he and the rest of the conservative news media spend four years propping up actual witch hunts by a Republican Congress, and Democrats are a hollow shell by the time of the 2020 redistricting and presidential election.

Djinn wrote:

538 has the candidate reviews in article form too if you prefer to read. Very insightful articles. They make a good argument for Harris having the most potential of any of the candidates.

I saw a discussion on Chris Hayes last night making the same point. The primary schedule really works out in her favor. But there is a long ways to go.

IMAGE(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/371405990358155278/537279197073244170/unknown.png)

From NPR. That everyone after Warren basically have "Unsure/Never Hear Of" over 50% to me seems to imply that there's a lot of room for surprises.

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!"

Oh, hey, my current presidential position.

Zona wrote:

From NPR. That everyone after Warren basically have "Unsure/Never Hear Of" over 50% to me seems to imply that there's a lot of room for surprises.

Yeah, the grey there is going to interfere with prognostications. Bernie is probably close to his ceiling, and Biden is in the lead because people have heard of him, the Obama aura rubbed off on him, and he hasn't had to make any recent legislative stands. (I think he's too old and not in touch with the current generation's interests, but whatever.)

I can list off the issues I have with most of the Democratic legislators, but right now I think most of them are better on most of the issues I care about than Obama was so it's not too bad. And they're all lightyears away from the current administration.

Zona wrote:

From NPR. That everyone after Warren basically have "Unsure/Never Hear Of" over 50% to me seems to imply that there's a lot of room for surprises.

Biden's numbers are quite high, but I imagine that's because most people only know him as Obama's BFF and have no idea what his policy positions are. Those numbers will inevitably drop when/if he starts campaigning. Bernie needs to win over Dems who have soured on him. Warren's numbers are okay, but 17% disapproval this early isn't great. Bloomberg, no, just no. Everyone else just needs to get their name out there if they want a chance.

Biden was a long time senator, and was quite well known long before Obama.

His time as a senator will be both bad and good for him. We'll see how much people like to accept change when they start asking about the Anita Hill hearing. Will him admitting that he was wrong and acted badly then, but now sees the world in a better way work for him?

There is a good chance Biden could run the table in the primaries. He's pretty universally loved by Democrats and independents. One thing the middle voters might crave is something familiar and stable.

Sucked to see Klobuchar so low. Hopefully that can change, but she does not exactly have a huge personality. She's just really freaking smart and unflappable.

Biden's unusually high favorability is because of the Biden memes. Prove me wrong.

Stengah wrote:

Biden's unusually high favorability is because of the Biden memes. Prove me wrong.

Just got a Text From Hillary saying "yup"

DW's #1 is currently Kamala. Ex-prosecutor, so she knows how to make tough decisions, has been in the game, and can push to get sh*t done. She also likes how she will make a good executive, versus others who she sees as being better as legislators (Warren).

DW's?

IMAGE(https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/03/28/635947984637528884-1583860202_pbs.png)

Dear Wife.

I think Kamala Harris’ chances during the primaries largely depend upon how far she can run from the extremely problematic stuff she did as prosecutor and attorney general.

Stengah wrote:

Biden's unusually high favorability is because of the Biden memes. Prove me wrong.

I feel like a lot of people who love Meme Biden are going to be in for a shock when they see Creepy Old Man Biden in glorious 4k.

thrawn82 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Biden's unusually high favorability is because of the Biden memes. Prove me wrong.

I feel like a lot of people who love Meme Biden are going to be in for a shock when they see Creepy Old Man Biden in glorious 4k.

I can't see him surviving the dredging of the Anita Hill hearings.

Djinn wrote:

Warren's numbers are okay, but 17% disapproval this early isn't great.

The margin of error for that part of the poll was +/- 6.0% because only Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents were polled, which took the sample size down to about 400.

If you look at the crosstabs for Warren it looks like her disapproval is highest among Democratic-leaning Independents (23%), Soft Democrats (21%), the Northeast (23%), Other (race) (31%), People who are 18-29 (19%), People who are 30-44 (21%), Gen Z/Millennials (18-37) (22%), Men (24%), People from big cities (31%) and Men from suburbs/small cities (20%).

Top_Shelf wrote:

Dear Wife.

Got it! My wife was telling me this morning that she listened to an interview with Harris and was more impressed with her than she thought she would be.

We both still heavily favor Klobuchar, but she has a tough task ahead. Looking forward to seeing how the field shapes up as the campaigns shift into gear.

We also talked about Biden for awhile this morning. She likes him a lot, but compares this to her work as head of her firm’s hiring committee. At some point you need more than just diversity candidates. You also need to hire them. Then, when they don’t work out, you need to hire other diversity candidates. She compared Biden to a comfortable sweatshirt, but maybe we need something less comfortable.

That doesn’t rule out Biden. But, as Tanglebones mentioned, the Anita Hill hearing were a bad look for him. On the plus side, he and the Democrats responded to that sh*tshow by actually changing, which was clear during the Kavanaugh’s hearing. The Dems went from a panel of senators just as white and male as the GOP to a panel with multiple women and people of color.

Biden does not defend his role in the Anita Hill hearings. He was part of the change in response to them.

One issue facing a lot of Dems is their need to apologize for past sins. Change is good, but it is going to test voters on how much change we accept, and how much past behavior still limits their appeal.

But still, overall, I think the Dems are developing a good slate of candidates.

Yeah, no more old white men for now, thanks.

karmajay wrote:

Yeah, no more old white men for now, thanks.

No Party For Old White Men

In all seriousness, no men this time around, period--it's too important to win this one to have it derailed by something coming out of any guy's sketchy past.

Just throw Tim Kane on there as the VP again. He seemed nice.