Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Magicalcrab]

The entire Dem field bar Sanders and Warren to some degree is absolutely astoundingly bad. I voted for Clinton and recognize that she had problems, but she is 10 x better than fucking Corey Booker or Kamala Harris. Literally the most wet napkin candidates, don't represent anything except wealthy donors, talk like robots, etc.

Boy, I sure love it when candidates tell me, "Hey that thing that you and millions of other Americans like and want, sorry, but we're not going to do it - vote for me in 2020!". Really great sales pitches here people.

And if anyone is appealing to independents and "centrists", it's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Every poll says this, so I don't know why people think their politics are limited or in any way fringe. Unless they're making up alternative facts, that is.

Meanwhile, the only thing seemingly keeping Biden afloat is his constant media coverage and this unfounded belief that he is more "electable". More or less every poll shows Biden and Bernie in a statistical tie for electability, so again, alternative facts.

TV pundits and analysts, even hobbyists like Skroe, need to get it through their heads that the focus of this election ought to be sincerity, honesty and strong policies designed to help struggling people. Not of wishy-washy politics-as-usual. And it's been like this for years. It's what got Obama elected in 2008 ("I'm going to change the way Washington Works"), and it's what got Trump elected in 2016.
Minimalist ideas and appeals to the status quo haven't worked in ages. It's neither a popular, nor a winning strategy for a presidential campaign. If you don't see that at this point, I'm afraid you don't understand anything about politics.

[infinitemeridian]

And if anyone is appealing to independents and "centrists", it's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Every poll says this, so I don't know why people think their politics are limited or in any way fringe. Unless they're making up alternative facts, that is.

Meanwhile, the only thing seemingly keeping Biden afloat is his constant media coverage and this unfounded belief that he is more "electable". More or less every poll shows Biden and Bernie in a statistical tie for electability, so again, alternative facts.

TV pundits and analysts, even hobbyists like Skroe, need to get it through their heads that the focus of this election ought to be sincerity, honesty and strong policies designed to help struggling people. Not of wishy-washy politics-as-usual. And it's been like this for years. It's what got Obama elected in 2008 ("I'm going to change the way Washington Works"), and it's what got Trump elected in 2016.
Minimalist ideas and appeals to the status quo haven't worked in ages. It's neither a popular, nor a winning strategy for a presidential campaign. If you don't see that at this point, I'm afraid you don't understand anything about politics.

I mean, it's been like this since Carter and the rise of neoliberalism, especially when it came to a fever pitch during the Clinton administration. People keep running on the fact that it's still relevant and a winning strategy when it hasn't worked in over 20 years.

I love how Biden is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's only electable because he's electable, thus making him more electable. I have still yet to understand how anybody could vote for Biden on anything - I could see literally any candidate over him.

[Skroe]

This is the old way of politics, and it's not really relevant in the year of our lord 2020. Democrats should not try to appeal to "moderate republicans" in 2020, that ship has sailed. Republicans will vote for Republicans - they've historically been unwilling to shift. So yeah, please remember that it's not the 90s anymore where voters are impressed by slick talking points and rolled up sleeves and fake anecdotes about quote-unquote real americans.
Populism is the way to go. The ONLY way Democrats lose in 2020 is if they elect a boring, insincere moderate who does not excite their base.

Those voters don't exist in sufficient numbers in places Democrats need to win. That is the problem. Exciting the base would work if we had a popular vote and didn't have a senate. We don't.

Even in the House, Nancy Pelosi owes her majority to the fact that she won back districts that voted for Trump in 2016. She recruited a huge number of moderate Democrats and rebuilt the Blue Dog Coalition.

"Exciting the base" isn't a viable strategy for either party. In fact, Trump won because he found crossover appeal in voters who voted for Obama... white working class that historically voted Democratic. Not the base.

You think Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by playing to the base in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina? Balderdash.

I'd also like to take this moment to remind everyone that you thought Tim Kaine would absolutely not be Clinton's VP in 2016. You claimed liberals had no clue, and that Clinton more or less had the election in the bag and only needed to sway two swing states. Some humility when it comes to your predictions and commentary would be much appreciated by now.

I'm going to address the second part first.

First, I made a single projection about Tim Kaine not being chosen in 2016 in exactly one post. In fact, I barely speculated on the VP candidate at all. I focused most of the primary season taking a dump on Bernie, and most of the General election season taking about Trump (negatively) rather than extolling Clinton. So yeah, you made that up. What I have done is say that in retrospect, Tim Kaine made little sense as a VP candidate. It was logical at the time, but illogical ex-post-facto. It was a very 1990s, very conventional choice, who largely checked the boxes with voters Hillary Clinton did. What Hillary needed given the primary she was in was a young, probably man of color, who Bernie Sanders would give his blessing to.

What did I say about Tim Kaine when he was chosen though?

Strategically brilliant choice.

Popular spanish speaking governor of a battleground southern state. Conservative, catholic, anti-abortion.

Hillary will become President if she wins the Democratic Blue Wall (the 18 states + DC Democrats have one in the last 6 consective presidential elections) :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/y11e8
(242 votes)
+ the follow state combinations.

+ Virginia (13) and Ohio (18) = 273
+ Florida (29) = 276
+ New Mexico (5), New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Colorado (9) and Iowa (6) = 272
+ Virginia (13), Colorado (9) and Nevada (6) = 270
+ Virginia (13), Colorado (9) and Iowa (6) = 270

There are many, many combinations. Far more than Trump. It really is as simple as that.

Kaine helps. Picking a liberal (Warren) would have done nothing to gain Hillary substantial numbers of voters in these moderate swing states. It really doesn't matter how enthusezed Bernie Bros in California would have been. Hillary is going to win California by a landslide already. They can stay home. But she needs as many voters as she can get in:

Virginia
Ohio
Florida
Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Iowa
New Hampshire


These are not liberal places. THey have liberal pockets, but they are states that dance the red-blue line. Hillary is MUCH smarter to be going after the far more numerous disaffected Republicans like myself, who will NEVER vote for Trump, than to try and pick someone so liberal as to alienate them.

Seriously... just think about it. Who should Hillary go after in order to win? The largest voter pool there is. And what is more numerous in say, Florida, moderate conservatives or hard left liberals?

Kaine was safe, and he made a ton of sense.

For the record Obama won all the states named above in 2012.

Of course, in the end, Hillary won all those states, except Iowa, just not the Blue Wall, but for other reasons.

Now let's talk about "humility". I hate this shit. Truly.

I recognize that this forum is stacked to the brim with people who are chronically depressed, introverted, and suffer from ongoing low self esteem issues... but I am not one of those people. "Humility" in the way you're using it mostly means "shut up and stop making me feel incomfortable".

My record on predicts is pretty damn good. I'd say well above 80%, just to pull a number out of my ass. I've been right about Russia and China on almost every issue relating to them, for the past 8 years. I was right on the Greek crisis. I was right on the European Union. I was right on ISIS. I called the outcome 2018 election outcome within a handful of seats. I've called much of relating to the Trump-Russia investigation. I walked away from the Mueller report feeling entirely vindicated.

I did not see Brexit coming.
I dod not see Trump getting elected.

That is pretty much it.

My record is pretty fucking good. Nobody's is 100%. Nobody's could ever be hundred percent. And I stand by every single single prediction I've ever made. Every single one. Especially the ones I've been wrong about. Those matter more. They bring about enlightenment. It is the uneducated common man... the little person... the diminutive fool... that finds shame in "wrongness" and thinks we who do not suffer from their self esteem issues should curl up on a ball when it happens. I find an education, in or to channel more towards my efforts.

So I will be making predictions. Many many more predictions. And sure, on some of them I will be wrong. Yeah, I'll even be on the wrong side of elections sometimes. That's the way it goes! When a baseball team has a .600 win percentage, they're doing great. Mine's better than that.

You want an outlandish prediction? Here's a humble projection. By 2024, the chief campaign issue is that everyone in sundry who is humble ought to be castrated. Let's check in in 2024.

Jesus-tapdancing-christ. "show some humility". Hah! You people....... *shakes head*.

- - - Updated - - -

It is amazing how wrong you have been for the last couple of years and haven't learned one thing from 2016. Nobody thinks like this except the media and the consultant class, who pretty much all normal people despise. Dems should embrace actual policies instead of being a party of "muh both sides" because they appear weak and out of touch.

Manchin is not a Dem and people are tired of them making excuses for people like him for stupid platitudes like "compromise" and other shit that doesn't actually work

See above, print it out and put it on your wall.

My record is awesome. You're just mad that you need people like Manchin and hate being reminded of it. It eats at you. You are frustrated at the compromises one man (and people like him) for on you in order to win. You feel it lessens you.

Well get used to it, son. Because it's him or another Republican. And if that's upsetting to you, consider that if aa purist, ideologically uniform Democratic Senate caucus of ~38 Senators came about, that you would be essentially handing over the entire Federal Court System to Mitch McConnell and his successors.

Republicans are massively outnumbered in this country but routinely win fights they shouldn't because Democrats who wear their politics on their sleeves *routinely* elevate their wants above their needs. Because they want to feel whole. Justified. It's fucking stupid.

I'll say again... do you think Mitch McConnell cares that Susan Collins crosses the party line sometimes? Not one bit. Because he's had her there for every Federal Judge.

You may hate him, but he knows how to play the game far better than you people. And you may think that you are lowering yourself by even playing the game. But that's the way things are here. You are playing, willingly or not.

But sure, tell me how getting out the progressives is going to win (in more than just a fluke) states like North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and West Virginia. Please. I could use a good laugh.

The joke of it is of course, if you folks tried it and face-planted as badly as you would, the day after you'd pull "the Tea Party Maneuver", which is to say "our candidates and campaign weren't ACTUALLY true to our beliefs and positions enough".

The Tea Party does it the same way progressive interest groups do it now. It's about power. It's about influence. A candidate (left or right) who wins with moderates owes a lot less (if anything) the the most rightmost (if Republican) or left most (if Democratic) elements of their electorate. Obama's the chief example of that. Progressives and progressive groups loved him... and found themselves during his Presidency still on the outside.

In Donald Trump, the rightmost elements of the Republican Party found themselves on the inside, en-masse, for the first time ever. The left-most elements of the Democratic Party... those who want a progressive President, a progressive House and a progressive Senate, want to be basically the same position with the next Democrat. You know, instead of naming an ex-Marine as National Security Adviser, name some disarmament crank, a mirror of John Bolton.

It's all about power and control and if that's the way the Democratic Party - the last defenders of democracy this country has - truly wants to go, then the Trumphadis are in turn basically correct, and we should ALL shift to a purely extraction-mode of politics, where we don't care if we screw our fellow man and don't care for sustainable solutions and consensus, so long as it brings short-medium term gain to my immediate political and financial desires.

We're not there yet. But your mode of thinking - which let's be clear, completely sucks as an electoral strategy and in the name of good governance, and is self defeating - gets us a hell of a lot closer.
l

[Magicalcrab]

-snip-

Ok.
I'm sorry you got upset.

Bernie Sanders is still more electable than Biden given the current climate.

[Skroe]

I mean, it's been like this since Carter and the rise of neoliberalism, especially when it came to a fever pitch during the Clinton administration. People keep running on the fact that it's still relevant and a winning strategy when it hasn't worked in over 20 years.

I love how Biden is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He's only electable because he's electable, thus making him more electable. I have still yet to understand how anybody could vote for Biden on anything - I could see literally any candidate over him.

Because while progressive Democrats may get excited about the perceived "sweeping" (using the term loosely) change brought about by a progressive candidate... they only make up about 12%-16% of the country, with the Democrats as a whole making up about a quarter.

The uniform message from people on the ground in places Democrats need to win is about Healthcare, Jobs and concern about speed of change in our society and the world. This is the whole "left behind" argument.

Joe Biden appeals to people in these areas, and is thus, by far the most electable, precisely because he is not talking "Revolution" like Old Man Sanders or comes up with a new trans-formative policy document every 3 days like Warren. He is the candidate of the "5%-7% change". He tells people "we're going to fix the things you dislike, which are small changes to serious issues, but fixable, and leave what you like and find familiar alone".

Thats why his lead is so enduring. Because for all of Sanders' Rhetoric or Warren's plans, its plainly clear the American people as a whole prefer incrementalism over (perceived) radical transformation.

This is precisely why after about a two week period where "Medicare for All" was the hot button Primary issue, pushed by Sanders, nearly every candidate (including progressives) except for Sanders have backed away from it to some degree. Because Healthcare is one of the most personal things to voters and most people are reasonably content with their healthcare. Is it perfect for ALL Americans. Far from it. But voters aren't concerned with all Americans (hence why the old Democratic position in the 1990s and 2000s of "Universal healthcare" was not a winner". They generally don't care if the 15% with shitty healthcare rot and die. They care about themselves.

So Medicare for all kind of quieted down, because the Biden approach "Make Obamacare better, and make your healthcare as a whole 5-10% better without blowing up the system we have" is a vote winner.

Is it the best policy? Almost certainly not. But we're not talking about the best way to run a country. We're talking about how to win on election day. And step one is making people feel comfortable with you.

[I Push Buttons]

This is the old way of politics, and it's not really relevant in the year of our lord 2020. Democrats should not try to appeal to "moderate republicans" in 2020, that ship has sailed. Republicans will vote for Republicans - they've historically been unwilling to shift. So yeah, please remember that it's not the 90s anymore where voters are impressed by slick talking points and rolled up sleeves and fake anecdotes about quote-unquote real americans.
Populism is the way to go. The ONLY way Democrats lose in 2020 is if they elect a boring, insincere moderate who does not excite their base.

Ohio, 2008:
Obama - 2,940,044, McCain - 2,677,820

Ohio, 2012:
Obama - 2,827,709, Romney - 2,661,437

Ohio, 2016:
Trump - 2,841,005, Clinton - 2,394,164

People obviously change their votes. 400,000 left-leaning voters didn't miraculously vanish and 200,000 right-leaning voters didn't miraculously appear out of thin air between 2012 and 2016 in Ohio...

[Skroe]

Ok.
I'm sorry you got upset.

Bernie Sanders is still more electable than Biden given the current climate.

No. I'm not upset. It's an internet forum! I was just ridiculing the completely fraudulent point you were trying to make. About me, and about "predictions".

I mean frankly, it's a joke you even wrote that shit. I mean politics is intrinsically part of projecting what "will" happen based on the evidence we have at hand and reading of a trend lines.

You were basically saying "you should not express your opinion because you wuz wrong before"

Oh noes.....

This is more ridicule by the by.

Bernie Sanders is still more electable than Biden given the current climate.

He's not. Not remotely. He could still beat Trump. I'd vote for him over Trump. Easy vote. But since Bernie Bros are every bit the cult as the Trumphadis, I know nothing I could say would ever dissuade you from thinking Saint Sanders isn't the obvious choice to do so. The entire basis of Bernie's strategy would be that he could pull in more crossover voters in those States Democrats must-win, to a degree greater than Trump. Ain't happening. Not with a guy who has spent years trying to reform the "good name" of "socialism", that he'd be tagged with.

Frankly, I wish we had some kind of viewer into parallel dimensions where we could view alternate timelines and see a world where Bernie wins, only to see the Mitch McConnell blockade stymie him for his entire term.

I mean that's already going to be an issue. When the next Supreme Court vacancy opens up, do you expect McConnell to allow a vote on ANY Democrat's nominee, at any point in their tenure? I sure don't.

I'm voting for Biden or any Democrat (I changed my party in Massachusetts to independent just to vote in the primary for him over Warren/Sanders), with the expectation that he does nothing more than press an undo-button on all executive level abuses of power and bad policy by Trump, and open a sweeping investigation into the Trump Administration. Nobody should expect one iota more from the next President. They will be handcuffed into signing the next two 2-year deals put in front of them by the Democratic/Republican Congressional bipartisan spending consensus, just as Obama was after 2015 and Trump has been since his second month in office.

Really, I'm entirely serious. President Sanders (actually President anybody, of any party) would have to sign a Budget Continuing Resolution for probably a few months in February 2021, before getting 2 year deal #4 dropped on his desk by April/May 2021. There goes the Political Revolution!

[tyrlaan]

*shrugs. I guess sense of humor varies among people. I tend to not take all of my disagreements so seriously to the point, I can not also laugh. I laugh at several of the cartoon caricatures of politicians, even ones of Trump, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, etc. But each to his own.

No.

No, again you try to shield yourself with an "agree to disagree" argument when that's not what this is.

Trump isn't a fucking comedian. He's supposed to be the leader of our nation, which means everyone in it. Not just his base, not just his allies, not just rich people, not just white people, not just heterosexuals, not just Christians, not just citizens of states and not territories. Everyone.

He has respect for one thing - toadies. And if you're not a toadie, you get ridicule or shitty "jokes" from him.

Yeah, a fucking laugh riot.

Sense of humor absolutely varies among people, but the leader of the US being a complete shitheel and asshole to everyone that doesn't suck up to him doesn't qualify as humor even if he has someone follow him around and do "bah-dum-tsch" after each time he pukes out some words that are supposed to pass as comprehensible sentences.

But, hey, to each his own, right? /s

[Masark]

People obviously change their votes. 400,000 left-leaning voters didn't miraculously vanish and 200,000 right-leaning voters didn't miraculously appear out of thin air between 2012 and 2016 in Ohio...

Does the word "turnout" have any meaning to you?

Or do you think you're Australia where everybody votes?

[Blade Wolf]

No. I'm not upset. It's an internet forum! I was just ridiculing the completely fraudulent point you were trying to make. About me, and about "predictions".

I mean frankly, it's a joke you even wrote that shit. I mean politics is intrinsically part of projecting what "will" happen based on the evidence we have at hand and reading of a trend lines.

You were basically saying "you should not express your opinion because you wuz wrong before"

Oh noes.....

This is more ridicule by the by.



He's not. Not remotely. He could still beat Trump. I'd vote for him over Trump. Easy vote. But since Bernie Bros are every bit the cult as the Trumphadis, I know nothing I could say would ever dissuade you from thinking Saint Sanders isn't the obvious choice to do so. The entire basis of Bernie's strategy would be that he could pull in more crossover voters in those States Democrats must-win, to a degree greater than Trump. Ain't happening. Not with a guy who has spent years trying to reform the "good name" of "socialism", that he'd be tagged with.

Frankly, I wish we had some kind of viewer into parallel dimensions where we could view alternate timelines and see a world where Bernie wins, only to see the Mitch McConnell blockade stymie him for his entire term.

I mean that's already going to be an issue. When the next Supreme Court vacancy opens up, do you expect McConnell to allow a vote on ANY Democrat's nominee, at any point in their tenure? I sure don't.

I'm voting for Biden or any Democrat (I changed my party in Massachusetts to independent just to vote in the primary for him over Warren/Sanders), with the expectation that he does nothing more than press an undo-button on all executive level abuses of power and bad policy by Trump, and open a sweeping investigation into the Trump Administration. Nobody should expect one iota more from the next President. They will be handcuffed into signing the next two 2-year deals put in front of them by the Democratic/Republican Congressional bipartisan spending consensus, just as Obama was after 2015 and Trump has been since his second month in office.

Really, I'm entirely serious. President Sanders (actually President anybody, of any party) would have to sign a Budget Continuing Resolution for probably a few months in February 2021, before getting 2 year deal #4 dropped on his desk by April/May 2021. There goes the Political Revolution!

Let's put it this way, the centrist democrats had their shot in 2016 and they fuckin failed horribly against Trump which says it all. Maybe it's time to accept that people are tired of the status quo pushing democrats that refuse to make any major changes.

[Skroe]

Does the word "turnout" have any meaning to you?

Or do you think you're Australia where everybody votes?

Turnout was high both years, and even a larger vs smaller turnout (a matter of a few percent across the entire country) wouldn't produce the voter shift illustrated there.

Republicans have started to win more reliably in Ohio because Democrats have moved to the left and stopped appealing to Ohio voters. The same process also called Iowa to fall out of the "reliably Democratic" column, and threatens Democrats in New Hampshire too.

This is one potential map for 2020. Perhaps one of the most likely in the event Trump wins:



Republicans win everything they're "supposed" to win, including Arizona, Florida and North Carolina (all three narrowly). Democrats recover in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but falter narrowly in Wisconsin. And Donald Trump ninja's New Hampshire.

Trump gets a second term 273-265.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's put it this way, the centrist democrats had their shot in 2016 and they fuckin failed horribly against Trump which says it all. Maybe it's time to accept that people are tired of the status quo pushing democrats that refuse to make any major changes.

Yeah this isn't an electoral strategy. This is an emotive argument. There is no such thing as "turns". and the people you speak of are mostly urban democratic voters along the coasts who vote soldily Democratic.

You know the people who make Elizabeth Warren a Senator. That's fine!

But those aren't the people who will get Pennsylvania voting blue again. If Democrats want to win Pennsylvania, they need to win big in the middle of the state... places like Altoona... which aren't looking for transformative Democrats in the way progressives mean it.

The recurring theme here I'm seeing from posters is an insistence on politicians who satiate their needs. That's not how you win anything in a Presidential campaign. You win by appealing to people who have DIFFERENT needs and DIFFERENT wants because it really is about a subset of 15 states (so a subset of a subset) that chooses the President, and none of them have substantial progressive populations in them... at least ones that could defeat a republican who gets his base to turn out and draws centrist independents (the country's largest constituency).

You may feel like "Centrist Democrats" blew it. But that's irrelevant. It is not an argument to say "they blew it, so it's the progressives turn". Voters in suburban and rural areas may have not liked Hillary, but the stuff Bernie said in 2016 positively scared the crap out of them.

And fundamentally, it wouldn't even matter if you got what you wanted. President Elisabeth Warren, President Joe Biden, President Bernie Sanders are going to smash against the Mitch McConnell Wall of "I don't care what you want", no matter how many speeches they give.

Perhaps the only bigger joke than Trump's presidency is progressives thinking that they "win" anything other than a feeling of validation if they won the Presidency in 2020. Because by the Fall of 2021, progressive would be ripping their hair out of their heads with the fact that their chosen President signed the 4th 2-year deal and Mitch McConnell doesn't let any judges come up for a hearing, or let any bills from the still-Democratic House get a vote.

Or let me put it another way: until Democrats win the Senate, there is no political transformation of any type coming to this country, period. Trump has to be removed because he is destructive, but any Democratic President, paired with a Mitch McConnell won Senate, might as well sit at Camp David for 4 years, because nothing will happen except for the bi-annual consensus budget deals.

Really, the Mickey Mouse level of politics hear is nauseating. It's like you folks think wanting something matters. Everybody wants something. And nobody else cares. Winning isn't based about wanting. Winning is based about headcounts. And the progressive model for turning out a headcount isn't enough to win the House, Senate or Presidency.

This is not a prediction. It is analysis of 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018. And if you think "this time is different"... Tea Party Republicans thought that too... and they only won because of Trump's crossover repeal. We'd all be living under President Hillary if the Republican Nominee had been Ted Cruz.

[Magicalcrab]

Ohio, 2008:
Obama - 2,940,044, McCain - 2,677,820

Ohio, 2012:
Obama - 2,827,709, Romney - 2,661,437

Ohio, 2016:
Trump - 2,841,005, Clinton - 2,394,164

People obviously change their votes. 400,000 left-leaning voters didn't miraculously vanish and 200,000 right-leaning voters didn't miraculously appear out of thin air between 2012 and 2016 in Ohio...

It's almost as if it's incredibly important to appeal to independents, which one candidate does much more than most others.

To explain my position a little bit; I think a lot of online discussions about politics, specifically the election predictions, gets lost in the web of policy ideas more than they necessarily need to. Most of the time, all you need is a person who at the very least appears to be fighting for people in some capacity - be it "changing the system" or "bringing coal back" or whatever it might be. Most voters do not have the time to analyse the ins and outs of policy proposals the way the members of this forum might do on a regular basis. Most of the time, a gut feeling that someone will fight for them is enough.

Clinton's biggest issue was that she was largely seen as a representative of the status quo, a system that hasn't worked for most american families for over thirty years now. People were tired of it, and she did not help herself at all.
Trump's persona, on the other hand, gave people the impression that he was one of them. Right or wrong, he became the candidate for "change" and "political revolution". This, ironically, is the only weapon Trump has leading into the 2020 elections.

Don't let him use it against another status quo no-change Democrat when the country is thirsty for big, structural reform. Conservative OR liberal, populism works.

To be fair, though, Trump's approval numbers are absolutely abysmal outside of the hardcore Republican party, and Biden's not been smeared to the same degree as Clinton over the course of three decades. It would take a lot more Biden gaffes to make up for that (though the more he talks, that seems to become statistically more likely).

And fundamentally, it wouldn't even matter if you got what you wanted. President Elisabeth Warren, President Joe Biden, President Bernie Sanders are going to smash against the Mitch McConnell Wall of "I don't care what you want", no matter how many speeches they give.

Perhaps the only bigger joke than Trump's presidency is progressives thinking that they "win" anything other than a feeling of validation if they won the Presidency in 2020. Because by the Fall of 2021, progressive would be ripping their hair out of their heads with the fact that their chosen President signed the 4th 2-year deal and Mitch McConnell doesn't let any judges come up for a hearing, or let any bills from the still-Democratic House get a vote.

Or let me put it another way: until Democrats win the Senate, there is no political transformation of any type coming to this country, period. Trump has to be removed because he is destructive, but any Democratic President, paired with a Mitch McConnell won Senate, might as well sit at Camp David for 4 years, because nothing will happen except for the bi-annual consensus budget deals.

To move away from the electability angle a bit, I find this line of argument a little... strange? I'm not saying Mitch won't be a huge turtle and hide all manner of legislation inside his shell, because he will, but what makes you think it'd be different with a Biden presidency?
I mean, isn't it more likely that Mitch McConnell might buckle if the President fights, like a populist would, and put political pressure on him?
I know if I was American and didn't have universal healthcare and might go bankrupt if I so much as sneeze, I'd rather have someone exerting some manner of influence rather than trying to extend olive branches to the king of corruption.

Olive branches that worked so well for Obama, I mean.

Like, how is "But the republicans and their donors won't like it" even an argument? Are Democrats really so used to laying on their backs instead of making their case? Is that the attitude you want in the White House?
If actually making your case is out of the question, then I don't know what these elections are even for.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Ok.
I'm sorry you got upset.

Bernie Sanders is still more electable than Biden given the current climate.

You need to learn the difference between being "more electable" and "I like him more than Biden". Biden carries weight in the states that we need to contend for. Bernie carries weight in solid blue states where there's really no contest, and is weak in swing states. If you're playing by the rules of the electoral college, that means Biden is the more "electable" one.

[Skroe]

To move away from the electability angle a bit, I find this line of argument a little... strange? I'm not saying Mitch won't be a huge turtle and hide all manner of legislation inside his shell, because he will, but what makes you think it'd be different with a Biden presidency?

It won't be different at all. In fact that is EXACTLY what I wrote a few posts up. McConnell is going to stonewall whatever Democrat is elected.

Or to put it in very direct terms, if Biden, Warren or Sanders take the oath of office on January 20th 2021, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn't wake up on January 21st 2021, Mitch McConnell will see to it that whoever the President is NEVER gets to fill that seat.

Everything that President - Biden, Warren or whoever - wants to do, he will stonewall. The House will pass bills, just as they do now, and McConnell will not take them up for a vote.

Precisely nothing will be different between them. That is what progressives have to accept. McConnell will blockade everything. And furthermore, even if he wasn't there, it wouldn't fundamentally Medicare for All, Sander's vision, would require 60 votes in the Senate to pass. Even if Democrats had 51 votes in the Senate - which they don't - assembling 60 votes for that is a complete impossibility.

Biden, Warren, Sanders... nobody should take seriously any of them will actually do anything.

I mean, isn't it more likely that Mitch McConnell might buckle if the President fights, like a populist would, and put political pressure on him?
I know if I was American and didn't have universal healthcare and might go bankrupt if I so much as sneeze, I'd rather have someone exerting some manner of influence rather than trying to extend olive branches to the king of corruption.

McConnell is political pressure proof. At least of the type you're describing. He doesn't care. Furthermore, the things that you and some progressives think are important, aren't necessarily what most voters think are important.

Take healthcare.


https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/...ositively.aspx


Most Americans are pretty darn happy with their healthcare and its coverage. Would they like to see improvement and it be cheaper? Sure. But the numbers there are quite clear: Americans are pretty satisfied with their healthcare as a whole.
Now let's be clear, I'm not saying there is "no healthcare issue". I'm saying that Americas are extremely egocentric on the topic. Democrats ran on "Universal healthcare" for decades before Obamacare, and it was not a vote getter. Americans did not care. Because 85% of Americans (as of 2007) had Healthcare from employers or the government. And that 85% didn't really care about the 15%. That's the truth of it: the 85% was ready to let the 15% rot. Obamacare, strictly speaking, was mostly about increasing coverage. And it was quite unpopular, because Americans didn't really care about helping those 15% (which obamacare reduced to about 7%) at the cost of making their own healthcare costs go up. When the provisions for coverage and some cost-supression parts of Obamacare came into effect and Americans saw them, they started to like it more... but that just drives home the point. Healthcare is about THE PERSON, and not "THE PEOPLE".

So consider the primary campaign of of "Medicare for All". How is it supposed to be a vote getter unless voters, 82% of Democrats who are happy with the quality of their Healthcare according to Gallup, suddenly start to care about people other than themselves and put others needs and wants instead of their own? The answer is: it doesn't happen, which it is why Healthcare is very tricky to run on in America. The "bad things that happen regarding it" seem to always happen to "other people", so it never informs the mass of voting habits.

McConnell sees these, and higher resolution numbers. He sees the money associated with it. He won't bend. Populism doesn't work here. Donald Trump has tried the populist route. He's probably the weakest, least effective President since the late 19th century, and that's WITH McConnell's backing.

Olive branches that worked so well for Obama, I mean.

Domestically? It didn't work at all. He was the President that saw sequestration in 2013 instead of a budget. In fact, House and Senate Democrats had a dysfunctional relationship with him. They considered him aloof. They didn't trust his staff.

Obama's last few years were spent, much as I described, signing legislation he had no role in crafting, because he wasn't invited in the room. McConnell didn't want to work with him, and Democrats didn't like his tactics.

Like, how is "But the republicans and their donors won't like it" even an argument? Are Democrats really so used to laying on their backs instead of making their case? Is that the attitude you want in the White House?
If actually making your case is out of the question, then I don't know what these elections are even for.

That's not an argument they (or me) are making. It's thast nothing happens here without a majority of the House (elected by districts, control of the House dominated by swing districts that skew conservative), 60 votes in the Senate (which McConnell dominates) and the Presidency (won by an electoral college... indirect democracy, really chosen by 15 of 50 states).

Which is to say, big changes never happen except in times of a major crisis (post 9/11). It's a system designed to handcuff all parties and promote incrimentalism.

Most optimistically, Democrats can get 60 votes in the Senate by 2028 or 2030, and that's if expected retirements/deaths happen between now and then, demographic shifts occur AND Democrats run the board on all the elections between now and then. Barring that... 59 votes won't cut it. The Republican, then Minority leader, will just keep his more ideologically pure (because smaller) caucus in tact and blockade the Democratic Majority leader then too.

To put it simply, to get "free college for all" will mean jumping over far more hurdles than just Mitch McConnell's dead body.

[kaelleria]

That map is terrifying but completely feasible...

WI did go blue in 2018, but I could absolutely see that map showing up.

[Ghostpanther]

Getting some name recognition is never a waste of time.

It is with some. Like they have other public jobs which they should be putting their attention and energy on at this point. I do not even remember a lot of the candidates.
I like Gabbard, but not sure she has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

[Skroe]

That map is terrifying but completely feasible...

WI did go blue in 2018, but I could absolutely see that map showing up.

That's the 2nd or 3rd worst map.

This is the worst one:



Trump FAILS to pick up up New Hampshire (narrowly) and Nebrask's swing-electoral vote goes Blue. It creats a 269/269 tie, which throws the election to the House.

You may think "oh Democrats got that locked down!" Wrong.

Each state delegation votes as a bloc in this, based on the majority vote within the delegations. This means California has 1 vote, Massachusetts has 1 vote, etc. The winner must have 26 votes. DC does not have a vote.



In the current Congress, there are 26 Republican dominated states, and 22 Democratic. Pennsylvania and Michigan are split. But it wouldn't matter. The Republican states would vote for Trump, and Trump would get a second term.

Thus fulling his seeming historical role as a stress test on every aspect of our system.

[Ghostpanther]

But this isn't a cartoon caricature of Trump. This is the president himself publicly shaming candidates of the other party for dropping out of the race. That's why it's not funny: it's not a joke, it's not a parody, it's not satire. That the leader of the country is acting this way should be deeply distressing to everyone, and it's frankly a bit disgusting that his supporters are willing to say "ha ha, isn't that funny, our president is being a total dick."

You do not find these jokes about candidates made by Obama funny?

[Gestopft]

Bernie carries weight in solid blue states where there's really no contest

Not as much as you’d think. He’s far and away the leading recipient of donations in the Democratic primary but it’s not because he’s juicing his numbers in solid blue states- it’s because he’s the most-donated to candidate in 44 states.

[Fugus]

You need to learn the difference between being "more electable" and "I like him more than Biden". Biden carries weight in the states that we need to contend for. Bernie carries weight in solid blue states where there's really no contest, and is weak in swing states. If you're playing by the rules of the electoral college, that means Biden is the more "electable" one.

Been a while so I have missed a lot so haven't been able to keep track of hardly anything. But browsing some today.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c47285...s-ruling-class

Fast forward to about 2:30 into this video and start listening, how "electable" do you think Biden will be after having that plastered wall to wall during the election? Biden is the less electable between him Sanders and Warren due to that soundbite alone.

The main ones who will support his call to cut social security and medicare won't be voting Democrat and that there ended his chances.
@cubby

Finally found that video.