Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

First question at the November debate better be how they plan to get their agenda through Congress because the nuking the filibuster is DEAD.

 

 

This is like the Republican Senators saying they would hold Trump accountable if he gets elected.  The dynamics change when someone else is at the helm.  This looks like posturing for concessions or some shit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13479

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Will they?

Tester? Absolutely.
Sinema? Almost certainly.
Manchin? Probably not, but he'll officially be a Republican if Warren or Sanders win the nomination so that's a little different.

I lay this out constantly and no one who supports any other candidate can articulate any kind of strategy that makes any damn sense...
- Primary Bad Dems and get them replaced with Good Dems
- Utilize the bully pulpit of the presidency to whip them into line
- Organize constant protests against Bad Dems who oppose the will of the people
- Put heavy pressure on any organization that supports Bad Dems

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I lay this out constantly and no one who supports any other candidate can articulate any kind of strategy that makes any damn sense...
- Primary Bad Dems and get them replaced with Good Dems
- Utilize the bully pulpit of the presidency to whip them into line
- Organize constant protests against Bad Dems who oppose the will of the people
- Put heavy pressure on any organization that supports Bad Dems

Why not done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13479

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

All of those things you talk about, why aren't they happening?

It's not happening because the Democratic Party has been reshaped over the last 3+ decades from a party of workers and large movements to a party dominated by small corporate interests. The idea of populist pressure against an incumbent is unthinkable in 2019 in a way that it was not in the 1970s/80s.

Moving the Democratic Party back to becoming a party of the masses of working people is a difficult long-term project that only started in earnest 3-or-so years ago. AOC and Bernie bringing in 2k+ people to rallies in Iowa where they talk about a working class revolution is kind of a positive signal.

very much suspect that me sincerely answering that question will lead nowhere and was a completely pointless enterprise, but hope springs eternal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not happening because the Democratic Party has been reshaped over the last 3+ decades from a party of workers and large movements to a party dominated by small corporate interests. The idea of populist pressure against an incumbent is unthinkable in 2019 in a way that it was not in the 1970s/80s.

Moving the Democratic Party back to becoming a party of the masses of working people is a difficult long-term project that only started in earnest 3-or-so years ago. AOC and Bernie bringing in 2k+ people to rallies in Iowa where they talk about a working class revolution is kind of a positive signal.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

very much suspect that me sincerely answering that question will lead nowhere and was a completely pointless enterprise, but hope springs eternal

 

Good. You understand politics, so you aren't going to be surprised when you have to vote for Joe Biden in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22978

Posted
Posted

These "Deval Patrick is actually more electable than any candidate" HOT TAKEZ are killing me.

When does the general consensus shift away from the need for a long, extended primary?  This will be twice in two elections that a political party has essentially cannibalized itself throughout the process.  These thoughts about how none of the candidates being electable are absurd and not so much a referendum on the candidates, but more on the state of news in 2019.  It would be interesting to go back in time and witness how the "great" candidates would have survived in this era of 24/7 political echo chambers. 

The only reason a number of these candidates are viewed as unelectable is because they each have a fanbase yelling at the top of their lungs about how the other ones suck.  I'm not saying they're all great, but somehow the country has talked themselves (or the media thinks they have, at least) into thinking that none of them are worthy, which couldn't be further from the truth.  There are some damned good options left, and yes that includes someone who isn't your favorite.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

These "Deval Patrick is actually more electable than any candidate" HOT TAKEZ are killing me.

When does the general consensus shift away from the need for a long, extended primary?  This will be twice in two elections that a political party has essentially cannibalized itself throughout the process.  These thoughts about how none of the candidates being electable are absurd and not so much a referendum on the candidates, but more on the state of news in 2019.  It would be interesting to go back in time and witness how the "great" candidates would have survived in this era of 24/7 political echo chambers. 

The only reason a number of these candidates are viewed as unelectable is because they each have a fanbase yelling at the top of their lungs about how the other ones suck.  I'm not saying they're all great, but somehow the country has talked themselves (or the media thinks they have, at least) into thinking that none of them are worthy, which couldn't be further from the truth.  There are some damned good options left, and yes that includes someone who isn't your favorite.

 

The whole electability angle is built on faulty and specious framing.

2020 is about the American people getting the opportunity to terminate Trump’s employment as a public servant.  His replacement is electable regardless.

However, this framing isn’t horse racey enough to keep the pundits employed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The whole electability angle is built on faulty and specious framing.

2020 is about the American people getting the opportunity to terminate Trump’s employment as a public servant.  His replacement is electable regardless.

However, this framing isn’t horse racey enough to keep the pundits employed.  

It has nothing to do with it not being "horse racey" enough. You're trying to say that the nominate makes zero difference on their chances of winning, that 100% of voters are going to vote based on Trump. You're trying to rag on the "pundits" for being too simple when you're saying that who the Democrats nominate doesn't matter, which is of course a simplistic outlook on things.

Marianne Williamson would lose to Trump much more easily than Warren would. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump in 2016. A generational candidate like Obama would landslide Trump. You post a lot of polls. They show significant variance between the top candidates amongst the same sample group, which means that there are absolutely people out there that would vote for candidate X over Trump while not voting for candidate Y over Trump. The candidate matters.

There's a lot of substance to a debate about whether it's more important to mobilize people that are not regular voters (ala Bernie) or try to capture the middle and the Obama->Trump voters (Biden). And of course it's early in the process and people's votes can be won/lost between now and November 2020. But to say that open debate about which candidate can beat Trump is "faulty and specious" is wrongheaded. There are two things that a primary is supposed to do, and figuring out the candidate who gives the best chance to win the general is one of them. You seem to be awfully sensitive about people doing what the primary is intended to do.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
Tulsi would do well in NH because it is a state with a lot of primary voting "independents" who don't like the Democratic Party or what they stand for.  And if you are independent/undeclared, you can vote in the Democratic Primary in NH. 


That’s a lot of words to say “Republicans”.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Marianne Williamson would lose to Trump much more easily than Warren would. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump in 2016. A generational candidate like Obama would beat Trump in an absolute landslide.

When you say shit like this, you’re just speculating based on incomplete information.  This is punditry. 

My position is the 2020 election is a referendum on Trump.  Either people want four more years of Trump or they want something else.  

Polls today are in no way predictive of future results a year away.  They are only snapshots at this moment in time which are subject to change in a heartbeat.  

There are too many unknown variables from now to then to determine which democrat is more “electable” than the other.   Where are the polls showing an election in a recession environment?  What if Biden has a stroke?  What if Trump is hospitalized?  How about accounting for campaign performance in the primary?  Or fundraising ability and voter enthusiasm?  The political environment is subject to change very rapidly. 

You can make an argument that you want to nominate the candidate that puts you in the best position to win but you are not going to get that information from any electability polls today.  They are bullshit.  Vote for the candidate you like the most and let democracy run its course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When you say shit like this, you’re just speculating based on incomplete information.  This is punditry. 

My position is the 2020 election is a referendum on Trump.  Either people want four more years of Trump or they want something else.  

Polls today are in no way predictive of future results a year away.  They are only snapshots at this moment in time which are subject to change in a heartbeat.  

There are too many unknown variables from now to then to determine which democrat is more “electable” than the other.   Where are the polls showing an election in a recession environment?  What if Biden has a stroke?  What if Trump is hospitalized?  How about accounting for campaign performance in the primary?  Or fundraising ability and voter enthusiasm?  The political environment is subject to change very rapidly. 

You can make an argument that you want to nominate the candidate that puts you in the best position to win but you are not going to get that information from any electability polls today.  They are bullshit.  Vote for the candidate you like the most and let democracy run its course. 

The polls right now are not going to be great in terms of predicting who can best beat Trump. But they can provide some insights. And what they do tell you (the point I made that you completely missed) is that there are voters who will vote for one Democrat over Trump but not another, which is one of many data points that dispute your "you're either voting against Trump or you aren't" assertion. 

My personal favorite candidate is Mike Gravel. He rules. But I'm not going to vote for him in the primary because he would lose badly to Trump. Voting for him would be irresponsible. Just as not at least considering who has the best shot to beat Trump (not by polls, but by your own personal judgement) is irresponsible.

So you're right about polls not being super predictive right now, but you're wrong about it being "bullshit" to consider electability when picking a candidate.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When you say shit like this, you’re just speculating based on incomplete information.  This is punditry. 

When you say shit like "it's a referendum on Trump" but don't admit that some potential candidates may not fare better than others, stroke notwithstanding, you're just spouting nonsense.  This is stupidity.

Champion democracy all you want, most of us are all for it.  But denying that it's worthwhile to engage in punditry regarding strategy?  Seems like intentionally putting one's head in the sand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

When you say shit like "it's a referendum on Trump" but don't admit that some potential candidates may not fare better than others, stroke notwithstanding, you're just spouting nonsense.  This is stupidity.

Champion democracy all you want, most of us are all for it.  But denying that it's worthwhile to engage in punditry regarding strategy?  Seems like intentionally putting one's head in the sand.

This. Hugo, you've sort of allowed two unrelated concepts to become one in your head. The correct notion that polls this far out aren't very predictive and the incorrect notion that the candidate doesn't matter at all in the general have sort of become one off-the-rails train of thought in your brain, with a few loose facts still attached to it.

You could debate all day whether courting the middle or courting passion is the right way to go, and I see truth in both. I'm undecided on which is more important this time. But it's crazy to literally think that the candidate doesn't matter because every one of 300 million Americans is either voting for Trump or against him regardless of Democratic nominee.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

When you say shit like "it's a referendum on Trump" but don't admit that some potential candidates may not fare better than others, stroke notwithstanding, you're just spouting nonsense.  This is stupidity.

Champion democracy all you want, most of us are all for it.  But denying that it's worthwhile to engage in punditry regarding strategy?  Seems like intentionally putting one's head in the sand.

Of course some candidates would fare better than others and you can make your own case for each but the reality is no one knows for sure.  My argument is basing those conclusions and assumptions exclusively on electability polls today is bad analysis because so many variables are not factored in, even measurable ones.

Very few thought Trump had a chance in 2016. The pundits gave him a +95% chance of losing yet here we are.  It’s also unsupported speculation that Bernie would beat Trump in 2016 because you don’t have the influence of Bernie’s general election campaign vs Trump’s general election campaign against Bernie factored in.  Bernie might or might not have beat Trump.  It’s impossible to determine, even with the existing polling data today.

Every Iowa poll out today has a 99% chance of getting the final results wrong.   They might be more predictive than they were six months ago but still highly likely of being way off. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8385

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

How narcissistic of all these late entrants. “Everyone can’t agree on a nominee....they are clearly waiting for me to jump in. I’ll save the Democrats!”

You expect them to tell you the real truth?  Some uber rich guy is willing to throw a lot of money my way if I run for POTUS, so I'm running for POTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86938

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

How narcissistic of all these late entrants. “Everyone can’t agree on a nominee....they are clearly waiting for me to jump in. I’ll save the Democrats!”

It's some weird some of narcissistic "only I can save the day!" and befuddled "Joe Biden is leading, so there's clearly a lane for me!" logic as if they just expect all of Joe's support to move over to them.  

Which is odd, because all of these "Hillary! Bloomberg! ANYONE!" calls were nowhere to be heard around, oh, October 8 when Biden finally lost his RCP lead.  Now he's rebounded back up to his best numbers in almost 2 months. 

By all accounts, the Democrats are happy with their field.  And it's a good field - the top 5 is a two-term VP, 3 current Senators and a mayor.  The nominee is going to come from someone in the top 5.  

Plus, late entrants (like 3 months before Iowa late) tend to fizzle out.  The donor support and grassroots support has picked someone already.   You won't make the November debate and you probably won't make the December debate considering how high the thresholds are.  So what's the point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...