2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hillary and her corporatist supporters sending out media trial balloons about her possibly running again and that the democrat field is weak is very disconcerting. They really don’t want Warren or Bernie to win. 

Was to be expected.  That’s why Bernie and Warren have to build grassroots movements.  They’re never going to get a equitable chance running a regular campaign.  

I’d be delighted if Warren was leading the polls but paper tiger Biden on top is okay as long as Warren is still chipping away inch by inch. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The Democratic field is weak,

Compared to what?  It’s the strongest field of my lifetime.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dbeasy 15526]

Thought I’d pass along results from my informal “business community” poll because there were some surprises.

Business leaders tend to lean Republican in voting, obviously, because of the stereotypical (but incorrect) view that Republicans are better for business. These leaders had interesting picks as compared to a few months ago. Back then they hadn’t yet jumped off the Trump train, arguing that even though he’s an idiot they really just cared about Republican control of the White House.

Yesterday, however, they all indicated they would vote Pete if he had a chance of winning. That’s a pretty big change in view. Regarding Bernie or Warren, they see them as too far left to support. I guess that means they would vote Trump? Not sure.

The Pete bashing on here is fierce, and the black vote will never go to Pete, but it does show some Republican oriented voters will vote Democrat for a solid moderate.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Compared to what?  It’s the strongest field of my lifetime.  

Compared to the GOP field in 2016 or 12 or 08 or 00, or the Dem field in 92, 2000, 2004, 2008.

There is no good option for the center left faction of the party, which is the largest faction. The only weaker year was 2012, when there was no good option for anybody.

[bad_teammate 13479]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There is no good option for the center left faction of the party, which is the largest faction.

Biden, Buttigieg, and Harris are all center-left.

[bad_teammate 13479]

35 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The Pete bashing on here is fierce, and the black vote will never go to Pete, but it does show some Republican oriented voters will vote Democrat for a solid moderate.

They can grab some Republicans and lose their base and lose again and LOLOLOL

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Biden, Buttigieg, and Harris are all center-left.

I said good option

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Compared to the GOP field in 2016 or 12 or 08 or 00, or the Dem field in 92, 2000, 2004, 2008.

There is no good option for the center left faction of the party, which is the largest faction. The only weaker year was 2012, when there was no good option for anybody.

Yeah, I disagree.  This field has been overloaded with center-left options.  Bennett, Klobuchar, Delaney, Biden, Buttigieg, Hickenlooper, Harris, Booker, Ryan, Sestak, Moulton, Bullock. 

The 2016 GOP field was atrocious. Kasich was the only “decent” candidate if you’re basing the strength of field as playing to the center, which is an odd way to evaluate strength. 

Polling indicates the overwhelming majority of democrats are satisfied with the choices in this race. 

Personally, I evaluated strength of field by ideological differences and demographic diversity of the choices.  

Edited October 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19439]

I also posted this in the Biden thread. National poll, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I also posted this in the Biden thread. National poll, so take it for what it's worth.

 

Margin of error of 5.8?!?    That’s a bit absurd for a mainstream poll.

[David Dennison 19439]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Margin of error of 5.8?!?    That’s a bit absurd for a mainstream poll.

For Democratic voters or independent voters leaning Democrat. It's 3.7 for all respondents and 4.0 for registered voters.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Personally, I evaluated strength of field by ideological differences and demographic diversity of the choices.  

I evaluate strength of field by enthusiasm and field momentum exclusively.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

They can grab some Republicans and lose their base and lose again and LOLOLOL

This would obviously be a disaster and would ruin millions of people’s lives and be terrible so you can’t hope for it to happen, but god dammit I want Pete to win the nomination by running the Hillary playbook and going after the center and trying to flip Republicans and then lose to Trump. It would be god damn hilarious, minus the consequences. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I evaluate strength of field by enthusiasm and field momentum exclusively.

Weird because by almost every metric, enthusiasm is off the charts among democrats. 

Not sure what “field momentum” is or how you measure it.  

[Js1 86924]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

They can grab some Republicans and lose their base and lose again and LOLOLOL

Correct.

Win your base and turn on the non-voters who sat out 2016 = win.  The Republicans who don't like Trump will come over on their own or sit out.  Not worth pursuing them if they demand the Democrat just run as a 2008 Republican.  Sit out or suck it up. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

Maybe the lesson to learn is that no one actually cares about centrism and "nothing truly challenging can get done and nothing truly terrible can get any better, but let's all smile a little more" doesn't motivate people.

Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

I have decided Mayor Pete wishes he was Hillary and Hillary wishes she was Mayor Pete. It’s a real gift of the magi scenario. 

[David Dennison 19439]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe the lesson to learn is that no one actually cares about centrism and "nothing truly challenging can get done and nothing truly terrible can get any better, but let's all smile a little more" doesn't motivate people.

Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

A lot of people are moderate in their views.

[F250 29170]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe the lesson to learn is that no one actually cares about centrism and "nothing truly challenging can get done and nothing truly terrible can get any better, but let's all smile a little more" doesn't motivate people.

Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

 

It depends on how you dress it up. Obama motivated people as a centrist under the guise of hope and change without affecting significant change. Granted, he left the office with a dissatisfied proletariat bursting at the seams. Still it's possible to motivate voters with centrism although it might not be good in the long term. Someone needs to hit the release valve every now and then to reduce the class tension or it bubbles up in unhealthy forms of populism like we have seen with Trump.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

 

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Weird because by almost every metric, enthusiasm is off the charts among democrats. 

Not sure what “field momentum” is or how you measure it.  

Field momentum is what Obama had in 2008 going into the Iowa and Texas Caucuses and Clinton lacked. It's the organizational torque that develops behind door knockers and caucus goers and volunteers who put their backs into it. Enthusiasm is a key input, but is diffuse energy without the organizing principle to direct and channel it towards action. 

Enthusiasm is off the charts to vote against Trump for sure, but it's diffuse energy at this point. As of this moment a plurality of Democratic primary voters appear to be with Biden and aren't very enthusiastic about it, which is where the largely illusory "Buttigieg surge" . You have the most enthusiasm for the candidate who is currently sitting at 3rd (Sanders), and for the guy in 8th (Yang). 
This field reminds me of the GOP field in 1996, actually:  

- Biden as the Bob Dole in this race - the guy the largest single coalition in the party can accept.

- Warren and Sanders trade off as Buchanan, getting the ideological base excited while exposing and deepening a key exploitable coalition fracture.

- Harris would be Phil Gramm, exciting initially but flaming out early.

- Buttigieg and Yang are Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes, respectively. An interesting and appealing alternative who just can't seem to get there and a one-trick pony.

No here's a big difference: Donald Trump's approval rating today is about 41%, about 6-7% lower than Clinton's was. But by November he had climbed to nearly 60% approval. At this moment about 50% of the American people would like to see Trump impeached now. But a lot can change between now and next november. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Maybe the lesson to learn is that no one actually cares about centrism and "nothing truly challenging can get done and nothing truly terrible can get any better, but let's all smile a little more" doesn't motivate people.

Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Actually getting things done and accomplishing progress is a lot more radical than accomplishing nothing while nobly losing elections.

[Brisketexan 106610]

It depends on how you dress it up. Obama motivated people as a centrist under the guise of hope and change without affecting significant change. Granted, he left the office with a dissatisfied proletariat bursting at the seams. Still it's possible to motivate voters with centrism although it might not be good in the long term. Someone needs to hit the release valve every now and then to reduce the class tension or it bubbles up in unhealthy forms of populism like we have seen with Trump.

This is a really good post. I’m relatively centrist...but I also agree that we’re due for some progressive populist policies, if nothing else, as a correction.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

15 minutes ago, F250 said:

It depends on how you dress it up. Obama motivated people as a centrist under the guise of hope and change without affecting significant change. Granted, he left the office with a dissatisfied proletariat bursting at the seams. Still it's possible to motivate voters with centrism although it might not be good in the long term. Someone needs to hit the release valve every now and then to reduce the class tension or it bubbles up in unhealthy forms of populism like we have seen with Trump.

I think you make a good point which is why I can get comfortable with a Warren presidency. We're probably due for a progressive correction.

 

But I don't think Obama was a centrist, he was almost completely non-ideological, which made people project their ideas onto him, thus the "idea of Obama"

[bad_teammate 13479]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

A lot of people are moderate in their views.

ok

?

14 minutes ago, F250 said:

It depends on how you dress it up. Obama motivated people as a centrist under the guise of hope and change without affecting significant change. Granted, he left the office with a dissatisfied proletariat bursting at the seams.

Yup

Quote

Still it's possible to motivate voters with centrism although it might not be good in the long term. Someone needs to hit the release valve every now and then to reduce the class tension or it bubbles up in unhealthy forms of populism like we have seen with Trump.

So the end goal is just to have the most moderate possible government and only appease the needs of the masses to prevent revolution?

Seems like that sucks.

dictatorship of the proletariat plz

[Brisketexan 106610]

Dp

[Brisketexan 106610]

Dp

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Not bad considering the all out Warren ambush at the debate last week. 

The more important numbers:

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually getting things done and accomplishing progress is a lot more radical than accomplishing nothing while nobly losing elections.

I, too, am inspired by the "let's just get things done and accomplish progress" pragmatism of President Hillary Clinton of the United States of America who won unlike that stupid loser Bernie Sanders who lost.

It is also good that she pragmatically won in 2008 over a more progressive and populist upstart who, if he HAD won, would have been very unpopular.

9 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Did you not see the poll with Alzheimer’s Word Salad Biden still leading by 15 points simply because he’s the familiar and back to normal candidate?

The only way progressive change happens is if we turn out the vote that is discounted in polling. The polls rely on likely voter models, which makes sense of course (I'm not arguing against the polls). However, if all we get are the likely voters we will either lose the general election or get a tiny majority that won't do anything (which is functionally indistinguishable from a loss).

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

29 minutes ago, F250 said:

It depends on how you dress it up. Obama motivated people as a centrist under the guise of hope and change without affecting significant change. Granted, he left the office with a dissatisfied proletariat bursting at the seams. Still it's possible to motivate voters with centrism although it might not be good in the long term. Someone needs to hit the release valve every now and then to reduce the class tension or it bubbles up in unhealthy forms of populism like we have seen with Trump.

Those are excellent points.  I've always thought the biggest threat to capitalism over the decades has been heightened class conflict and not socialist policies.  

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I, too, am inspired by the "let's just get things done and accomplish progress" pragmatism of President Hillary Clinton of the United States of America who won unlike that stupid loser Bernie Sanders who lost.

It is also good that she pragmatically won in 2008 over a more progressive and populist upstart who, if he HAD won, would have been very unpopular.

Obama was a progressive populist, now thats an example of "the idea of Obama" if I've ever heard one. 

And Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician. She didn't lose because of her policy positions. She lost because she's bad at running for office and losing is what she does.

[bad_teammate 13479]

8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Those are excellent points.  I've always thought the biggest threat to capitalism over the decades has been heightened class conflict and not socialist policies.  

What is the difference between "heightened class conflict" and "socialist policies"?

Lenin is very confused.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Obama was a progressive populist, now thats an example of "the idea of Obama" if I've ever heard one.

Obama the wild-eyed progressive vs. Hillary the pragmatic leader was the dynamic of the 2007/8 primary. Were you paying any attention at all during that time?

Quote

And Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician. She didn't lose because of her policy positions. She lost because she's bad at running for office and losing is what she does.

OK so then what is your standard actually based on? What's the historical model you're pointing to?

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Obama the wild-eyed progressive vs. Hillary the pragmatic leader was the dynamic of the 2007/8 primary. Were you paying any attention at all during that time?

OK so then what is your standard actually based on? What's the historical model you're pointing to?

Obama was so wild eyed that he stole his health care program from the Republican governor of Massachusetts.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Did you not see the poll with Alzheimer’s Word Salad Biden still leading by 15 points simply because he’s the familiar and back to normal candidate?

I also see the two agents of change just behind him polling higher when their numbers are combined.  This was the best poll for Biden I’ve seen in a while.  

I wish I knew why Biden’s numbers spiked in this one.  It could be the ongoing Trump feud that’s elevating him.  

Perhaps the perception that Trump is terrified of Biden enough to commit impeachable crimes gives the Biden candidacy more legitimacy as a safer bet.  

It’s a shame Warren doesn’t have a daughter that leveraged her mother’s political power to sit on some corporate board in Eastern Europe. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Perhaps it’s because not everyone in the coalition wants Democratic Socialism and even Candidate Abe Simpson still is hanging on as more appealing to them despite being an obvious buffoon.

Pretty sure most people just want a fair shake at life for themselves and their kids.  No one is confused about why Biden is leading, it’s because of his perceived electability against Trump.  It’s literally the whole basis for his campaign.  

[Js1 86924]

You consistently only say Biden is winning because "perceived electability."  It is more than that:

1.  His promise to basically be Obama's third term, of which the vast majority of Democrats still like Obama and would love to return to that

2. He might be senile, but Uncle Joe is god damn personable and likeable

3. He continues to lock down 2 of the most loyal and consistent parts of the Democratic primary electorate - older, non-college educated whites and black voters - through his moderation and experience and running as Obama's BFF.  

Sure, some of it is "perceived electability," but he also ticks a lot of boxes for the consistent Democratic primary voter. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Js1

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pretty sure most people just want a fair shake at life for themselves and their kids.  No one is confused about why Biden is leading, it’s because of his perceived electability against Trump.  It’s literally the whole basis for his campaign.  

This is correct but what happens when he starts losing in Iowa and New Hampshire?

[bad_teammate 13479]

14 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Obama was so wild eyed that he stole his health care program from the Republican governor of Massachusetts.  

2003 Obama

I'm not arguing that Barack Obama was a progressive president, I'm arguing that he was the more progressive option in the race vs. Hillary in 2007/8 Democratic primary.

He was the grassroots candidate who brought in tons of non-traditional Dems and motivated nationwide action to support his primary candidacy.

12 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Bad_Teammate, maybe it’s the fact that the public has loathed Hillary Clinton every time she was in the spotlight consistently since 1991?  And that she lost twice in national elections/primaries to huge underdogs?

I agree Hillary was/is a dog's dinner of a candidate... what's the point you're making though?

[bad_teammate 13479]

If this is the voter, nothing changes for people in need.

We have to get the young, the non-white, and the poor to the polls and, more importantly, to the streets.

[American Swindle 102]

15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not about being a cheerleader or opponent, it's about acknowledging the reality of human nature and societies.

Hillary Clinton is not the state. The mob is not the state. The state itself has done basically nothing to punish supposed Russian assets in elected government.

"The state" is a concept with a meaning.

lol libertarians

Libertarians are emotional train wrecks.

The US Constitution is authoritarian hmm yes very smart indeed

Let's imagine Hillary Clinton on the board of whatever government agency is regulating Facebook.  Do you think she will be an objective administrator and censor the appropriate information?  Do you trust her to do so?  Were you a defender of Youtube when they banned Alex Jones?  

What happens when that agency creates burdensome regulations that keep other platforms from competing?  You're asking for outright government control of platforms and it's a slippery slope to being abused by an entity that cannot go out of business (much like the monopolistic USPS.)  

Do you at least support Bernie's defense of Tulsi that she's not a Russian Asset? Can you at least see how Hillary's corporatist cronies are trying to smear Bernie? Are you okay with that? And if you agree that Hillary is the epitome of rot and corruption that Tulsi claims (I agree,) then imagine every government agency being run by her.  We have no choice but to pony up our tax dollars to enable such corruption.  

Lastly, Where does it outline in the Constitution anything that says people can't be billionaires?  Do you really believe that their shouldn't be billionaires?  I suppose you think Jeff Bezos is too rich, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest that you are a user of Amazon.  Do you use Amazon?  

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You consistently only say Biden is winning because "perceived electability."  It is more than that:

1.  His promise to basically be Obama's third term, of which the vast majority of Democrats still like Obama and would love to return to that

2. He might be senile, but Uncle Joe is god damn personable and likeable

3. He continues to lock down 2 of the most loyal and consistent parts of the Democratic primary electorate - older, non-college educated whites and black voters - through his moderation and experience and running as Obama's BFF.  

Sure, some of it is "perceived electability," but he also ticks a lot of boxes for the consistent Democratic primary voter. 

Yeah, I don’t buy any of this shit. I just don’t. Well, maybe the Obama connection but that’s even suspect.  

Biden is the same doofus he was when he failed at running for President in ‘87 and 2008 except now he can’t form complete sentences. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

From link:

However, Biden’s position as either a first or second choice candidate has dropped by 10 points among black voters (52% from 62% in July). Warren’s position as a top-two choice has improved among black voters (26% from 11% in July). Harris has declined as a top-two choice among black voters (17% from 28% in July), while Sanders remains about the same (25% from 23% in July).

Edited October 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

So, why would people be trying to convince themselves to hold their nose for Biden more now than they did in 87 or 08?

You know who the President is right? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete has South Carolina on lock down!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

if voters of every stripe just can’t wait for Bernie and Liz?

Really never made this claim but there’s a flaw with making assumptions based on polling way before people start voting/deciding.  In 2015 at this point in time Hillary was up on Bernie consistently by 20 to 30 points until the end of the year. She was polling in the 50s and 60s.  If Biden was putting up these numbers right now he would seem inevitable no?  

 

Then something happened.  People started becoming engaged and voting.  Bernie didn’t take a lead in an RCP poll until mid-February, when the primary was well underway. He actually made the race competitive. 

The point is Biden is WAAAY more vulnerable in this primary than Hillary ever was in 2016.  Also, Trump beating Hillary is pretty good evidence that a large section of voters were fed the fuck up with the status quo. 

Given the empirical evidence and recent trends, I’d argue the change agent candidates have the better chance of success in the 2020 primary and the general election. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

As was said before he jumped in, Joe's best day will be his first. There isn't a demographic of potential voters out there waiting for someone like Joe Biden to show up. He's not going to inspire non-voters who are alienated from the process. It's a joke.

He might win the primary, but the only way he's winning the general is if people just don't turn out.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Pretty sure most people just want a fair shake at life for themselves and their kids.  No one is confused about why Biden is leading, it’s because of his perceived electability against Trump.  It’s literally the whole basis for his campaign.  

No, I don’t think that’s true. Biden has his own value proposition, which is a return to normalcy and regular liberal Democrat politics.

Progressive maximalists offer the uncertainty of structural change from a minority position in their own party.

Hugo what you and BT struggle with is the same thing that Buchananites struggled with in 1996- you can’t seem to believe that a very large and crucial block in your party doesn’t seem to actually agree with you about what do after the election. You may eventually get a plurality, and it might even be 2020, but Warren would have to find a way to bring in some of those those who want something else.

That’s what Trump did, by the way- he eventually found an appeal that brought just enough mainstream Republicans into the Buchananist coalition.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Pretty sure most people just want a fair shake at life for themselves and their kids.  No one is confused about why Biden is leading, it’s because of his perceived electability against Trump.  It’s literally the whole basis for his campaign.  

No, I don’t think that’s true. Biden has his own value proposition, which is a return to normalcy and regular liberal Democrat politics.

Progressive maximalists offer the uncertainty of structural change from a minority position in their own party.

Hugo what you and BT struggle with is the same thing that Buchananites struggled with in 1996- you can’t seem to believe that a very large and crucial block in your party doesn’t seem to actually agree with you about what do after the election. You may eventually get a plurality, and it might even be 2020, but Warren would have to find a way to bring in some of those those who want something else.

That’s what Trump did, by the way- he eventually found an appeal that brought just enough mainstream Republicans into the Buchananist coalition.