2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13,195]

A nail biter for the SDEs in this count that could be accurate or total bullshit.

DEMOCRACY!!!

[RayDog 682]

Bernie will win the popular vote, he could win the SDEs, but he will lose the delegate race.

What a fucked up state.

 

[Fozzz 152]

lol dem higher ups must be shitting their pants about now.  Biden's collapse is the biggest story of the week.

Also, there is no reason for Elizabeth Warren to be in this race following the NH primary.  The only thing her campaign can hope to accomplish at this point is to prevent a Sanders victory on the first ballot thereby increasing the odds of a Biden nomination.  Is that what she wants?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Fozzz

[Js1 85,334]

Again, the rehab of Nate Silver’s models by the Bernie Bros Bc they now favor him is *chef’s kiss* 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

I said before any votes happened that if I had to bet I'd go with 538. They're the best modeling outfit.

 

Love your salt though.

[David Dennison 18,856]

25 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol dem higher ups must be shitting their pants about now.  Biden's collapse is the biggest story of the week.

Also, there is no reason for Elizabeth Warren to be in this race following the NH primary.  The only thing her campaign can hope to accomplish at this point is to prevent a Sanders victory on the first allot thereby increasing the odds of a Biden nomination.  Is that what she wants?

The goal now for the Democratic Party will be to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting a majority delegates before the convention.

[Js1 85,334]

 

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

9 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

Bernie beat Hillary there by over 20 points in 2016. Lots of bros in New Hampshire.

Yeah, I expected Bernie to win both Iowa and NH. Pete was a surprise.  Pete isn't going to win the nomination though. Biden will jump out into the lead and probably stay there once Southern states start voting.  Bernie will need to win some big states, TX, CA, NY, FL, etc. These typically go to the establishment, but maybe Pete can steal enough from Biden in a few of them to get Bernie the win. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13,195]

We've got about 3 months before anyone should feel comfortable.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yeah, I expected Bernie to win both Iowa and NH. Pete was a surprise.  Pete isn't going to win the nomination though. Biden will jump out into the lead and probably stay there once Southern states start voting.  Bernie will need to win some big states, TX, CA, NY, FL, etc. These typically go to the establishment, but maybe Pete can steal enough from Biden in a few of them to get Bernie the win. 

Bernie is leading in many Southern states, and even South Carolina looks like a tossup now.  Biden may not win a single caucus/primary this cycle.

[Js1 85,334]

Lol no it doesn’t. But keep on, brotha. 

[Js1 85,334]

 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

50 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

She's running 8 points behind them. That's not a great look

[bad_teammate 13,195]

She's 6 points behind the vote lead in Iowa, not 8. (SDE is dumb and should be ignored, especially for forecasting purposes)

And her vote total was 18%, which is exactly what her RCP Iowa poll average was going in.

She's not dead, but I'm REALLY going to need her to make some noise. Go call Pete a rat. DO SOMETHING

[Zonahorn 8,079]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

She's 6 points behind the vote lead in Iowa, not 8. (SDE is dumb and should be ignored, especially for forecasting purposes)

And her vote total was 18%, which is exactly what her RCP Iowa poll average was going in.

She's not dead, but I'm REALLY going to need her to make some noise. Go call Pete a rat. DO SOMETHING

SDE is what matters for delegates, and I didn't say she was dead, I said it wasn't a great look.

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

She's been relatively ignored by media and pundits post-Iowa. I completely understand that frustration since she over performed based off of recent polling in the state. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

she's in trouble as long as bernie is doing well.  it's not a fucking mystery novel.  her path was through the progressive lane and she's running 2nd there.

biden's stumbles will help pete short-term, but i think will end up helping bloomberg in the big picture.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

[bad_teammate 13,195]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

She's been relatively ignored by media and pundits post-Iowa.

Yep. She's doing a terrible job right now of elevating her profile and forcing herself into the conversation. I don't know if there's an idea in her campaign that some kind of meritocracy will prevail if she's smart and nice enough, but that ain't how it goes.

Draw some blood. Make some noise. Remind us you're here.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Yep. She's doing a terrible job right now of elevating her profile and forcing herself into the conversation. I don't know if there's an idea in her campaign that some kind of meritocracy will prevail if she's smart and nice enough, but that ain't how it goes.

Draw some blood. Make some noise. Remind us you're here.

attack bernie!

[Zonahorn 8,079]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yep. She's doing a terrible job right now of elevating her profile and forcing herself into the conversation. I don't know if there's an idea in her campaign that some kind of meritocracy will prevail if she's smart and nice enough, but that ain't how it goes.

Draw some blood. Make some noise. Remind us you're here.

Call out Biden for being touchy-feely 

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Yep. She's doing a terrible job right now of elevating her profile and forcing herself into the conversation. I don't know if there's an idea in her campaign that some kind of meritocracy will prevail if she's smart and nice enough, but that ain't how it goes.

Draw some blood. Make some noise. Remind us you're here.

IMO her comms team has dropped the ball so far post-Iowa. Still time for her to make some noise. 

 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

attack bernie!

No hit pete!!

[Zonahorn 8,079]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

attack bernie!

She tried that, it didn't go well

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

She tried that, it didn't go well

yeah, that was the joke.

although her people are still doing it.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

She tried that, it didn't go well

The attack and then declare we should all just get along tactic didn't work?

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

Shit's getting real 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

Bernie and Klob getting the bumps from Jan to Feb in the poll above. 

 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Bernie and Klob getting the bumps from Jan to Feb in the poll above. 

 

Gonna run out of liquor before super Tuesday.

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

I get the sense that the poll above isn't really based on Iowa "results", but the momentum created just before Iowa. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Shit's getting real 

 

twitter memes aside, pete has been polling really well in iowa and nh for a while now, which i thought might really impact biden, and it has.

but i'm surprised at how it's seemed to suppress the warren numbers as well, although that could also be a symptom of bernie's surge.  4th in nh is surprising to me (i know, it's just a poll).

depending on how super tuesday shakes out, is this turning into a bernie vs bloomberg horse-race?  and if bloomberg ends up running 2nd, i wonder if some candidates will say fuck it to the first few states, as long as they think they're viable for the super tuesday mass.

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

depending on how super tuesday shakes out, is this turning into a bernie vs bloomberg horse-race?  and if bloomberg ends up running 2nd, i wonder if some candidates will say fuck it to the first few states, as long as they think they're viable for the super tuesday mass.

The one issue with Bloomberg right now is that his "surge" is just based on national polling numbers or states that are still a few weeks away. There's nothing particularly tangible about his campaign right now. He's flooded the airways to get a national poll bump from people not really paying close attention. 

I feel like the actual RESULTS in NH, NV, and SC are going to be much more important and drive voters to a particular candidate instead of punditry regarding national polling numbers. At least I hope so. 

 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The one issue with Bloomberg right now is that his "surge" is just based on national polling numbers or states that are still a few weeks away. There's nothing particularly tangible about his campaign right now. He's flooded the airways to get a national poll bump from people not really paying close attention. 

I feel like the actual RESULTS in NH, NV, and SC are going to be much more important and drive voters to a particular candidate instead of punditry regarding national polling numbers. At least I hope so. 

 

Biden's entire candidacy at this point is a parasitic cycle of polls feeding into punditry about his electability. 

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

Biden's entire candidacy at this point is a parasitic cycle of polls feeding into punditry about his electability. 

Yes, it's been maddening. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

11 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The one issue with Bloomberg right now is that his "surge" is just based on national polling numbers or states that are still a few weeks away. There's nothing particularly tangible about his campaign right now. He's flooded the airways to get a national poll bump from people not really paying close attention. 

I feel like the actual RESULTS in NH, NV, and SC are going to be much more important and drive voters to a particular candidate instead of punditry regarding national polling numbers. At least I hope so. 

 

right - but i'm not talking about him winning, i'm talking about him finishing 2nd.  if you spend enough and in the right states, you cripple biden and overtake pete and can cruise to 2nd (but by a substantial margin).  in fact, for any bernie people* wondering if biden was a threat, i bet once this is over, they can thank bloomberg for muddying the moderate waters and clearing the path.

 

*after reading that it might be taken as a snark or insult, i've stopped using "bros".  feels about the same.

[Todd Gack 432]

Anand rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/is-bernie-sanders-electable-78226501865

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Lots of olds I know are getting really excited about Bloomberg because they think he will DESTROY Trump in a debate and then cakewalk into the White House. It is really hard to convince them that it won't happen that way, and harder still to convince them that basically putting the office of the presidency on eBay might have some sub-optimal long-term consequences.

Well-to-do olds with TDS are his only constituency. He has minimal-to-zero appeal to progressives and blacks and once his #metsoonami gets going, Trump will pretty much be able to both sides him on being a sexist pig, too. 

Despite all that, I think there is a 50-50 shot the DNC rigs it for him. They know best, after all. Haven't they showed us time and time again not to doubt their infinite wisdom and affinity for the American people?

[bad_teammate 13,195]

I've shown the "kill it" story to 3 different people who were Bloomcurious and it repulsed all 3 of them.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

19 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

Anand rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/is-bernie-sanders-electable-78226501865

Thanks for the link. Interesting discussion - Chait (neoliberal all the way), Johnson (neoliberal political "scientist" who calls out Chait's BS) and Anand (neoliberal who is waking up). And then the Republican - Joe Scarborough. 

Anand gave a speech to Google - I don't think they expected him to say what he said. 

 

[Js1 85,334]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,934]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

 

Yikes. 

 

Andrew Yang’s campaign fired dozens of staffers this week after an abysmal finish in the Iowa caucuses, according to four former staffers who were let go.

Among those dismissed were the national political and policy directors of the campaign, as well as the deputy national political director — all senior-level positions. The people who were fired worked across Yang’s organization, from his headquarters in New York to the now-disbanded Iowa operation.

[wildcat09 29,354]

18 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Thanks for the link. Interesting discussion - Chait (neoliberal all the way), Johnson (neoliberal political "scientist" who calls out Chait's BS) and Anand (neoliberal who is waking up). And then the Republican - Joe Scarborough. 

Anand gave a speech to Google - I don't think they expected him to say what he said. 

 

Anand's book is really good. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Yang was innovative. He introduced an idea (UBI) to millions - an idea that may be the solution to a country where economic policy has decimated the working class, hollowed out the middle class, and is coming to strangle the information class under the efficiency metric. He raised important issues. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yikes. 

 

Andrew Yang’s campaign fired dozens of staffers this week after an abysmal finish in the Iowa caucuses, according to four former staffers who were let go.

Among those dismissed were the national political and policy directors of the campaign, as well as the deputy national political director — all senior-level positions. The people who were fired worked across Yang’s organization, from his headquarters in New York to the now-disbanded Iowa operation.

Weird article. Was someone somehow expecting a better finish than what they got? Smells like bullshit. 

[Brisketexan 105,138]

While this is a broad political take, it has particular relevance to the question of who is nominated -- punchline: maybe it doesn't fucking matter at all (caveat -- Biden might actually be a bad enough choice to hurt the Dems' chances)....(caveat 2 -- this thesis doesn't take into account election interference and voter suppression, which will be significant factors):

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944?fbclid=IwAR3mp6dnz9hQACsEmdci5Js6w4SPRPQgwDgDghnKApR12PWeGzJitQcYfCU

Quote

Bitecofer’s theory, when you boil it down, is that modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place. To her critics, she’s an extreme apostle of the old saw that “turnout explains everything,” taking a long victory lap after getting lucky one time. She sees things slightly differently: That the last few elections show that American politics really has changed, and other experts have been slow to process what it means.

......

The classic view is that the pool of American voters is basically fixed: About 55 percent of eligible voters are likely to go to the polls, and the winner is determined by the 15 percent or so of “swing voters” who flit between the parties. So a general election campaign amounts to a long effort to pull those voters in to your side.

Bitecofer has a nickname for this view. She calls it, with disdain, the “Chuck Todd theory of American politics”: “The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.”

“And it is just not true.”

....

As she sees it, it isn’t quite right to refer to a Democratic or Republican “base.” Rather, there are Democratic and Republican coalitions, the first made of people of color, college-educated whites and people in metropolitan areas; the second, mostly noncollege whites, with a smattering of religious-minded voters, financiers and people in business, largely in rural and exurban counties.

“In the polarized era, the outcome isn’t really about the candidates. What matters is what percentage of the electorate is Republican and Republican leaners, and what percentage is Democratic and Democratic leaners, and how they get activated,” she said.

.....

As for the overall role of those voters, she maintains that actual swing voters are a small percentage of the result, even in counties where the vote swing is as large as Wasserman describes. Don’t talk to people in the bleachers of rallies; check the voter file, she says. “It would be one thing if that county had 100,000 people in it who voted in 2012, and then it was the same 100,000 who voted in 2016, but that is not what is happening,” she says. “The pool of who shows up changes.”

.....

What she didn’t count on at the time was that negative partisanship can work both ways, even when there is one party in power, and that no one knows how to fire up the fear factor in his coalition quite like Donald Trump. He did just that, and Blue Dog Democrats in Missouri and Indiana and South Dakota were done for.

But still, the results bore out her theory: For Democrats to win, they need to fire up Democratic-minded voters. The Blue Dogs who tried to narrow the difference between themselves and Trump did worse, overall, than the Stacey Abramses and Beto O’Rourkes, whose progressive ideas and inspirational campaigns drove turnout in their own parties and brought them to the cusp of victory.

....

“I am arguing radical shit, OK?” Bitecofer told me over a series of phone calls over the past several weeks in her Virginia office. “What I am saying is that almost all of this shit is set in stone for three years, that almost none of the shit that people are hanging onto, in terms of daily articles, or polls, or the economy or incumbency or ideology is really worth that much.”

.....

Once you know the shape of the electorate, she argues, you can pretty much tell how that electorate is going to vote. And the shape of the electorate in 2018, and 2020, for that matter, was determined on the night of November 8, 2016. The new electorate, as she forecasts it, is made up mostly of people who want a president named anything but Donald Trump, competing with another group that fears ruin should anyone but Donald Trump be president.

The first group, the Democratic universe of voters, now includes some very strange bedfellows, everyone from former Bush speechwriter David Frum to Susan Sarandon. It includes Al Sharpton and also the chief strategists for both Mitt Romney and John McCain’s failed presidential bids. It is Americans who are college-educated, who are not white or who live in or near a major urban center. This group turned out in force in the 2018 midterms, much the same way Tea Party voters showed up in 2010 to express their unhappiness at Obama. The more candidates talked about Trump and what a threat he was to their way of life, the more partisans were activated.

.....

The actual percentage of swing voters in any given national election according to her own analysis is closer to 6 or 7 percent than the 15 or 20 most analysts think are out there, and that larger group, Bitecofer says, are “closet partisans” who don’t identify with a party but still vote with one. (The remaining 6 percent or so of true independents, she says, tend to vote for whoever promises a break with the status quo.)

.....

And in a view that goes against years of accepted political wisdom that says the choice of a running mate doesn’t much matter, the key she says, to a 2020 Democratic victory will lie less in who is at the top of the ticket than in who gets chosen as veep. A good ticket-mate would be a person of color like Stacey Abrams or Julián Castro, she suggests, someone who can further ignite Democratic partisans who might otherwise stay home. The reason Trump won in 2016 was not, she says, because of a bunch of disaffected blue-collar former Democrats in the Midwest; it is because a combination of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin pulled away more than 6 percent of voters in a state like Michigan. These were anti-Hillary voters, yes—but they were anti-Trump voters especially, and they are likely to come to the Democratic fold this time around if they’re given a reason.

....

Unlike forecasters like FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who believe that candidates seen as too ideologically extreme pay a political cost, Bitecofer doesn’t see much of a downside to a candidate like Bernie Sanders. But she doesn’t see much of an upside either, since ideology isn’t as big a motivator as identity, and since Sanders did not in fact bring hordes of new voters to the polls in 2016. (Overall turnout in the 2016 primaries was down compared with 2008, when Barack Obama led a surge in the youth vote. In 2016, Sanders just did remarkably well among the young as Clinton tanked.) There is some risk to nominating Joe Biden, who could be seen as a candidate of the status quo against a disrupter like Trump, but either way, the key will be to do their version of what Trump does to them every day: make the prospect of four more years of Republican rule seem like a threat to the Republic, one that could risk everything Democratic-leaning voters hold dear.

I mean, all of this is predictive modeling stuff, so it's all "unknown," but there's some interesting hypotheses in there worth chewing on.  Things like "nominating Bernie wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help that much, either," and "Biden might be a bad candidate when what people are most looking for is a change-agent," and "the veep choice really might make a difference this time.'

Anyway, have fun with it.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Anand's book is really good. 

He is a good person to speak to the well-off who do not understand those less fortunate in this economic system. Like many in this country, income and wealth does not immunize one from being a low-information voter. Anand can reach those people. They may ignore him out of self-interest - which is rational - but at least they understand the pressure building and - perhaps - some will do better. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

While this is a broad political take, it has particular relevance to the question of who is nominated -- punchline: maybe it doesn't fucking matter at all (caveat -- Biden might actually be a bad enough choice to hurt the Dems' chances)....(caveat 2 -- this thesis doesn't take into account election interference and voter suppression, which will be significant factors):

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944?fbclid=IwAR3mp6dnz9hQACsEmdci5Js6w4SPRPQgwDgDghnKApR12PWeGzJitQcYfCU

I mean, all of this is predictive modeling stuff, so it's all "unknown," but there's some interesting hypotheses in there worth chewing on.  Things like "nominating Bernie wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help that much, either," and "Biden might be a bad candidate when what people are most looking for is a change-agent," and "the veep choice really might make a difference this time.'

Anyway, have fun with it.

I read that this morning. It’s a pretty good article and without election interference the dems are guaranteed to win. But that’s a big “if.”

This also goes back to something a guy I normally disliked recently said, or so I heard.

Bill Maher, who I find annoying, said that he supported Bernie because he had an army. And if that’s what he said he’s actually right. Bernie can raise Multi millions in an instant from thousands of people. Nobody else can come close to that. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

51 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Despite all that, I think there is a 50-50 shot the DNC rigs it for him.

But there's a 100% chance of that...

[washparkhorn 9,939]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

While this is a broad political take, it has particular relevance to the question of who is nominated -- punchline: maybe it doesn't fucking matter at all (caveat -- Biden might actually be a bad enough choice to hurt the Dems' chances)....(caveat 2 -- this thesis doesn't take into account election interference and voter suppression, which will be significant factors):

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944?fbclid=IwAR3mp6dnz9hQACsEmdci5Js6w4SPRPQgwDgDghnKApR12PWeGzJitQcYfCU

I mean, all of this is predictive modeling stuff, so it's all "unknown," but there's some interesting hypotheses in there worth chewing on.  Things like "nominating Bernie wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help that much, either," and "Biden might be a bad candidate when what people are most looking for is a change-agent," and "the veep choice really might make a difference this time.'

Anyway, have fun with it.

She is absolutely right - the seminal event was not the election of Trump, it was the anger over the 2008 GFC with trillions to the banks to bail them out for the problem they created and profited from. The prevailing theory that the Democrats overreached in policy was not correct, as she states. 

Key paragraphs - 

Hillary Clinton had run an entire campaign built around classic assumptions: She was trying to pick off Republicans and Republican-leaning independents appalled by Trump. So she chose a bland white man, Tim Kaine, as a running mate; it also explained her policy-lite messaging and her ads. But in the end, almost all of those voters stuck with the GOP. The voters who voted third party should have been Democratic voters—they were disproportionately young, diverse and college educated—but they were turned off by the divisive Democratic primary, and the Clinton camp made no effort to activate them in the general election.

. . . Although the ranks of independents are growing, up to 40 percent by some surveys, Bitecofer says campaigns have spent entirely too much time courting them, and the media has spent entirely too much caring about their preferences. The real “swing” doesn’t come from voters who choose between two parties, she argues, but from people who choose to vote, or not (or, if they do vote, vote for a third party). The actual percentage of swing voters in any given national election according to her own analysis is closer to 6 or 7 percent than the 15 or 20 most analysts think are out there, and that larger group, Bitecofer says, are “closet partisans” who don’t identify with a party but still vote with one. (The remaining 6 percent or so of true independents, she says, tend to vote for whoever promises a break with the status quo.)

It is not the swing - it is the base Democratic voter getting fired up. Who is the base Democratic voter? And what does the Democratic Party stand for in voters' minds. 

Thanks for the link. 

 

[Brisketexan 105,138]

24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

it is the base Democratic voter getting fired up. Who is the base Democratic voter? And what does the Democratic Party stand for in voters' minds. 

That's a pretty loaded and challenging question, though.  The GOP?  We know what they stand for: Trump and whatever he says.  I mean, in a way, that's a blessing for them -- makes life really easy.  Our coalition is people who support Trump, and doesn't include anyone who doesn't support Trump.  Not really a "coalition" at all -- it's simply a purity-test cult.

But the Dems....the Dem base is more of a coalition than the GOP.  What the Dems have to figure out is how to motivate and appeal to the broadest chunk of that coalition.  They can still  fuck that up by picking a point that leaves enough members of the coalition, at one end or the other, on the sidelines.  Thus the cautionary words about Biden, for example.  That's a challenge the Dems have that the GOP doesn't.  I think that makes them a better party for it, but it's still a challenge.