Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Nurasu]

Which means they have to win Wisconsin and North Carolina. And those Wisconsin numbers are bad news for Democrats.

Why and? Do you think PA will go for Trump again? Sanders is up in every poll I've seen for that state. Same with MI. We could even get by without FL, WI, and SC if we can carry AZ.

[Skroe]

*nods in agreement*
And if March 3rd comes and Sanders kills it, the DNC better grasp the reality and accept it.

Will the Bernie Sanders cult grasp reality when this is the map after election day in November:


This is not far fetched at all. It's everything Trump won in 2016, minus Michigan (which I will give to any Democrat). But in place of that, he picks up:

- New Hampshire (which he lost by only a few thousand votes in 2016). More moderates turned out than progressives during the Democratic primary. NH is trending red.

-Nevada, which is trending red and Republicans see as a state they can ninja in 2020 if campaigned right. Politico calls it a toss up.

If and when Trump largely recreates his map, trading Michigan for two other smaller states, does the Bernie Sanders cult grasp reality that Americans aren't exactly on board with the so-called political revolution or democratic socialism?

Or are you going to make excuses. Because if you want this to be an epochal defining election, you people better be ready to accept responsibility for your utter defeat, as much as you're measuring the curtains of the oval office and dreaming up schemes by which M4A gets passed. If you won't accept responsibility, should it comes, it really makes the lot of you just... not really great people.

What I want to hear is, "if Americans vote for Trump and that map above is mostly right, I accept that Americans generally don't want what I believe in and I was wrong to run on it in 2020".

Do you all have the courage to do that? I kind of doubt it.

[Shadowferal]

PA will be almost as blue as NJ for 2020

[Nurasu]

Will the Bernie Sanders cult grasp reality when this is the map after election day in November:


This is not far fetched at all. It's everything Trump won in 2016, minus Michigan (which I will give to any Democrat). But in place of that, he picks up:

- New Hampshire (which he lost by only a few thousand votes in 2016). More moderates turned out than progressives during the Democratic primary. NH is trending red.

-Nevada, which is trending red and Republicans see as a state they can ninja in 2020 if campaigned right. Politico calls it a toss up.

If and when Trump largely recreates his map, trading Michigan for two other smaller states, does the Bernie Sanders cult grasp reality that Americans aren't exactly on board with the so-called political revolution or democratic socialism?

Or are you going to make excuses. Because if you want this to be an epochal defining election, you people better be ready to accept responsibility for your utter defeat, as much as you're measuring the curtains of the oval office and dreaming up schemes by which M4A gets passed. If you won't accept responsibility, should it comes, it really makes the lot of you just... not really great people.

What I want to hear is, "if Americans vote for Trump and that map above is mostly right, I accept that Americans generally don't want what I believe in and I was wrong to run on it in 2020".

Do you all have the courage to do that? I kind of doubt it.

Nevada is a toss up for Gardner; it's not trending Trump. AZ also has an unpopular senator that already lost. and PA is not staying red. How you can look at the midterms and current polling and think that, I have no idea. Your doomsday scenarios if we don't nominate a blue Republican are just fantasy.

[CostinR]

Why and? Do you think PA will go for Trump again? Sanders is up in every poll I've seen for that state. Same with MI. We could even get by without FL, WI, and SC if we can carry AZ.

IF you carry AZ. Democrats have not made enough movement there to secure the vote, and AZ likes moderates. Don't make the mistake the Clinton Campaign made in terms of trying to turn AZ blue, it's highly unlikely to happen and I'd sooner win the lottery then think Arizona would be the state that decides the election. A democrat could maybe win but they'd have to run a superb campaign and win in many other places before AZ is even up for contention.

Trump doesn't need PA. He simply needs NC, FL and WI. He's got very good odds in all those 3 states.



Keep in mind this. Trump won't just be content to try and win such a narrow victory. His campaign will fight hard for every single blue wall state+ NV/CO/NM/VA. He doesn't have the best odds in all of these states, but if a democrat does poorly he can pick a few, or if a dem decides to implode he can win all of them.

Bernie Sanders just blew up his campaign in Florida. His campaign might as well pack their bags and never return to the state because they will never win after the royal screw-up on Castro.

[Thepersona]

Nevada is a toss up for Gardner; it's not trending Trump. AZ also has an unpopular senator that already lost. and PA is not staying red. How you can look at the midterms and current polling and think that, I have no idea. Your doomsday scenarios if we don't nominate a blue Republican are just fantasy.

Gotta understand that he's at heart a conservative. And someone who wants to socialize medicine while cutting defense spending is anathema to him

[Milchshake]

So, because you and me both are clearly annoyed by the amateurishness of the Sanders campaign, let's talk positivity.

Abrams is the obvious pick for VP, but barring that I'd like to hear your thoughts on Castro. The good one, not the dictator Bernie's carrying water for.

Can we dream?!

Kamala Harris would be the best VP. I mean if Bernie's Magic ploy is to use his VP to game the Senate, she's the clear cut choice.

Kamala debating McConnell on senate rules.... making me thirsty! A prosecutor directing fire on corruption investigations of the previous regime...



Oh ya, too bad they Bernd that bridge

[Thepersona]

IF you carry AZ. Democrats have not made enough movement there to secure the vote, and AZ likes moderates. Don't make the mistake the Clinton Campaign made in terms of trying to turn AZ blue, it's highly unlikely to happen and I'd sooner win the lottery then think Arizona would be the state that decides the election. A democrat could maybe win but they'd have to run a superb campaign and win in many other places before AZ is even up for contention.

Trump doesn't need PA. He simply needs NC, FL and WI. He's got very good odds in all those 3 states.



Keep in mind this. Trump won't just be content to try and win such a narrow victory. His campaign will fight hard for every single blue wall state+ NV/CO/NM/VA.

Dude, Trump has not increased the number of his base. And really, the only candidate that i think has better chance than sanders is warren

- - - Updated - - -

Can we dream?!

Kamala Harris would be the best VP. I mean if Bernie's Magic ploy is to use his VP to game the Senate, she's the clear cut choice.

Kamala debating McConnell on senate rules.... making me thirsty! A prosecutor directing fire on corruption investigations of the previous regime...



Oh ya, too bad they Bernd that bridge

Kamala/sanders? Now you have my attention

[Edge-]

Kamala Harris would be the best VP.

Sure, a liberal California Senator will do wonders for the ticket. She's a safe seat, but she brings nothing.

[Elegiac]

Sure, a liberal California Senator will do wonders for the ticket. She's a safe seat, but she brings nothing.

Plus, a prosecutorial record is no longer as attractive as it used to be now that the "Tough On Crime" era has passed.

Hence, my suggestion of Castro as an alternative to Abrams. He's much younger but has executive experience at local and federal levels, is a Latino and Texan to boot, and is clearly a pretty competent individual who carries himself well publicly. You could do far worse for a backup if Bernie were to vacate the office due to age.

[CostinR]

Dude, Trump has not increased the number of his base. And really, the only candidate that i think has better chance than sanders is warren

As an aquittance of mine once said: "That's a load of bilge."

Trump's overall approval rating has remained fairly steady. The level of support in the swing states is fairly good and his polling against every democrat is fairly solid.

His average of polling against Sanders is only down 4.4%. Given that most of the general election of 2016 he was down against Hillary by close to if not over double digits he's in an actually fairly solid position.

On the average of polling in Wisconsin he is tied with Sanders: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6850.html

In Pennsylvania he's down 3 points: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6862.html

In Florida, before Sanders' colossal fuck up, by 0.3 point: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6842.html

What's farcical is you bring Warren as somehow having a better chance. No she doesn't. She's worse in almost all the polling, both national and state polling. Her average on national polling is only above Trump by close to 2%.

[Skroe]

Why and? Do you think PA will go for Trump again? Sanders is up in every poll I've seen for that state. Same with MI. We could even get by without FL, WI, and SC if we can carry AZ.

First, I misspoke. I meant they need to win Wisconsin OR North Carolina. Winning either of those gives enough delegates (Wisconsin gives 10, NC gives 15, Florida gives 29). I totally intended to type "or".

Secondly see the map above. I think Trump will lose Michigan. But I think he'll be hard to beat in Pennsylvania and narrowly win it. His numbers there are solid and the economy numbers there are good. He also is spending a lot of money there. I think incumbency will play to his favor.


I think Democrats need to keep a sharp eye on New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota and to a lesser degree Virginia. I think Democrats SHOULD win all 4, but Trump is going after New Hampshire and Nevada energetically. He narrowly lost New Hampshire and Nevada politics are unpredictable.

Democrats winning Arizona would make the map considerably easier. The Arizona senate campaign between McSally and Mark Kelly is probably going to be the most expensive Senate Campaign in US history. The question is, to what degree will Arizona voters vote Democratic? The Democraitc "10 year plan", let's call it, is that as the rust belt goes red (i.e. Wisconsin becomes the new Ohio, for example), they offset it by having Latinos in the South shift red states blue. Arizona is the leading indicator on that. The hope is then eventually Texas, and Georgia and Florida.

The concern is this doesn't happen at the same time. That Wisconsin goes red before Arizona goes blue.

Arizona is going tobe an incredible tough state to call until the votes come in. I think if Sanders at the top of the ticket, it becomes logically harder. For a not-yet-blue state, having people able to vote Biden + Kelly (Moderate + Moderate) will be easier to swallow than Bernie + Kelly (Progressive + Moderate). It also raises the question of how much split-voting could be a thing (Trump for President and Kelly for Senator).

I think the Senate fight will be a vehicle for the PResidential fight there, and vice versa. They'll reinforce each other and nationalize the Senate election. Expect McSally and Trump to appear together a LOT.


This is why I think Arizona should be considered a "bonus prize" by Democrats. Nice if they get it. That being said, it's also vitally important if Democrats want to regain the Senate that they win that seat (which will be up for election AGAIN in 2022 by the way). But as far as the Presidency is concerned, the easier targets are elsewhere, at least nominally.

The problem with that though, is again, numbers in Democrats favor are real bad in Wisconsin and Bernie just screwed himself in Florida.

- - - Updated - - -

PA will be almost as blue as NJ for 2020

That's extremely wishful thinking.

[Themius]

But the difference is Obama never gave much evidence of being an kenyan gay muslim communist. The only thing Republicans could pin on him was that one time he dressed in traditional Kenyan dress on some foreign trip where he *gasp* wore robes and a turban, and some Jeremiah Wright BS that didn't stick.

Bernie Sanders just, today, on his own volition, white knighted Fidel Castro. For some reason. It's so much worse.

Trump will call Bernie a Communist, and then he will run adds every day saying "don't take our word for it, here's Bernie in his own words". And that will cause Cuban Americans in Florida to stay home or hold their nose and vote for Trump. And that is how Democrats lose Florida. Which means they have to win Wisconsin and North Carolina. And those Wisconsin numbers are bad news for Democrats.

No the fuck he did not, pay attention to the entire quote it is the same argument I've given here for ages and many people.

Just because a bad self-described socialist government did bad things doesn't mean health care for all is suddenly bad due to them, or that every single thing they did should be tainted. You know what the fuck he meant or at least I hope you did.

[Skroe]

Nevada is a toss up for Gardner; it's not trending Trump. AZ also has an unpopular senator that already lost. and PA is not staying red. How you can look at the midterms and current polling and think that, I have no idea. Your doomsday scenarios if we don't nominate a blue Republican are just fantasy.

Corey Gardner is running for re-election in Colorado, not Nevada.

Polling numbers in these states reflect my reality, not yours. I've shared them repeatedly in the past few days. Want to know what progressives keep saying "polls are wrong".

How Trumphadi of them all.

[Themius]

Sure, a liberal California Senator will do wonders for the ticket. She's a safe seat, but she brings nothing.

She doesn't seem liberal... i have always viewed her as a moderate.

[CostinR]

No the fuck he did not, pay attention to the entire quote it is the same argument I've given here for ages and many people.

Just because a bad self-described socialist government did bad things doesn't mean health care for all is suddenly bad due to them, or that every single thing they did should be tainted. You know what the fuck he meant or at least I hope you did.

You don't get it. @Skroe has said this over and over again but people flat out ignore it. People vote emotionally, especially those that have suffered under various regimes.

I'm from Romania, around here many people despise our main left wing party and for no other reason then because they see them as the continuation of the old communist party. There's no logic or well thought arguments one can bring to table to change people's minds on this. Because people suffered genuine harm and have been left with deep scars.

The Cuban-Americans despise Castro. There's no nuance to bring up here. They hate the guy's guts and celebrated his death. Sanders' argument is perhaps logically correct, but you don't argue that in the middle of an election.

Trump won Florida in 2016 in a fairly bitter contest. This time there's no contest. Good job Bernie.

[Elegiac]

No the fuck he did not, pay attention to the entire quote it is the same argument I've given here for ages and many people.

Just because a bad self-described socialist government did bad things doesn't mean health care for all is suddenly bad due to them, or that every single thing they did should be tainted. You know what the fuck he meant or at least I hope you did.

Again, the entire question is literal bait.

The correct answer is to sidestep it entirely. Because rather than making the public debate over whether or not Medicare for All or whatever is a good policy, it's whether or not left wing authoritarian regimes are inherently good or bad.

[Edge-]

She doesn't seem liberal... i have always viewed her as a moderate.

That's not what the rest of the country thinks.

[nonameelf]

it's whether or not left wing authoritarian regimes are inherently good or bad.

Sanders said it was bad. So I don't know what you're bitching about.

[Milchshake]

Bloomberg prepares media onslaught against Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders

• Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign plans to unleash its cash-flush media operation against Bernie Sanders in the wake of the Vermont senator’s resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses.
• Senior aides to Bloomberg’s campaign have been discussing how they are going to use some of their resources against Sanders, sources said.
• The campaign, which has already spent over $500 million on media ad buys, plans a multipronged attack, including the publication of opposition research on Sanders, the sources added.

Conventional wisdom would say these attacks are months too late. And from a terrible messenger... But conventional wisdom doest seem to hold in the Reality TV election.

IT might also test how teambernie will address things before a general.


Spoiler alert: they will be addressing it with "what about Bloomberg?".

Regardless, i'm looking forward to the vetting.