Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Skroe]

Oh one more thing @CostinR... elections are a good example of showing how budgets and funding things works.

Lockheed Martin makes about $51 billion a year. But what does it do? It sells extremely high prices military equipment in low quantities. You know, "just" 100 F-35s at $80 million a piece and that sort of thing.

Apple meanwhile makes about $50 billion a quarter, largely on the back of selling many millions of little devices (computers, phones, watches) at, lets say an average of $700.

Just the same in elections, a huge number of people donating $200 or less (usually less than $50) just swamps a small number of donors giving $50,000 to $10 million in spending. The Democrat's ActBlue donor platform is world-class, and has made them more than competitive with Republicans (actually, it's given them fundraising dominance). Republicans WinRed platform is a complete shitshow and many Republican groups tell their people not to use it. Republicans are far more reliant on big donor dollars.

Trump is expected to raise that amount of money in 2020 because his wealthy donors are expected to donate on a scale never seen before. As we're seeing with Bloomberg, spending $30 million a week on advertising (while Trump raised $45 million a quarter), the billionaires out there can finance huge buys if they choose. So Trump will likely be the benefit of people like Sheldon Adelson dropping hundreds of millions into him, either through PACs or into the RNC (since the donations to Trump's campaign are limited to about $2900 per person... parties have no limits).

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how Biden has a better shot than some of the others. He has a lot of questionable things in his record. He'll have the same effect on turnout for the left that Hillary did. He tends to mess up on a regular basis.

If Sanders or even Warren were the nominee not only would they get the same votes Biden would, but they would get voters out that Biden wouldn't. I don't buy for a second that fake moderates or anyone on the right would vote for Biden instead of Trump because they're voting Trump anyways.

Nominating Biden would demonstrate the DNC and Hillary voters from 2016 didn't learn their lesson.

For the seventeenth time, unless the left lives in vast numbers in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida, they are not the primary demographic you should be caring about in 2020. This is not a "turn out the base" election. This is a "get as many people as possible from all stripes and peel off a few in the middle".

The places I named are not hotspots of the left... not enough to make a difference. Let me put it another way, if Biden (or any candidate) can appeal to 10,000 people on the left in Wisconsin, versus 100,000 centrist independent or conservative Democrats, why on earth should he go with the smaller number? Is that logical? The point is to win elections, not to wave the ideological flag. The 10,000 should understand that rather than expect the candidate du jour to give them an appreciate handjob.

This is why Bernie is doing a lot better than Warren now by the way, compared to the tie they had a few months ago. She really stepped in it with her M4A proposal that the people in those states just do not want (so why fight it?). Bernie, while still pushing for that, has more cross over appeal. Basically while Warren is talking hard to those 10,000, Bernie has decided "you know, let's 5,000 of that 10,000 and go for 50,000 of that 100,000. It could very well net the nomination for him. Biden meanwhile is going for like 1000 of that 10,000 and 100,000 of that 100,000. That's made him stronger today than at any point since he entered the race.

But the thing you're suggesting is foolish to the extreme. It cedes the ideological center - where the voters who decide elections live - to the other side. A progressive candidate running as progressive will lose to Trump, because there are not enough progressives living in the states that mus be carried to win to offset ceding that center to Trump. It's just math.

You need to keep in mind something else: groups on the left, like those on the right, have a vested interest in pushing certain angles. The Tea Party groups "won by losing" in 2012 because they were able to channel the blame for Romney's loss into a claim that Romney playing for the center was the mistake, and what is needed instead was a candidate who was ideologically pure. I was there. I saw a lot of that shit as a Republican. Republicans only won in 2016 because Trump confounded the Tea Party approach and built crossover appeal in strategic areas. Had Ted Cruz been the nominee, the Tea Party approach would have failed (but perversely, Tea Party standing enhanced).

We're seeing that happen on the left. If Bernie wins, there are groups on the left right now that will stand to be the kingmaker. But if he is the nominee and loses in the general, like to Tea Party they'll create a fairy tale excuse and try to box out centrist Democrats for the 2024 election.

Moral of the story, ignore people who tell you to stick to the base. There is a lot of reasons that political theory came up, and a lot of is is due to how Bush won in 2004 versus Kerry giving bad formation. Also a lot of is is financial, because strongly ideological groups get more donations than closer-to-the center groups (another example of "winning even while losing".

You need to look at this as a problem of addition. You need to create a number of people to turn out on election day in about seven states... what is the most optimal route to creating the largest number. Is it ideological purity? Is it cross over appeal?

This year, the consensus is crossover appeal, because people really hate Trump and are offended by him in a way they never were even with Bush. Not going for crossover appeal this year is the death of a campaign.

Biden can beat Trump. Bernie might be able too, but the road is narrower. I don't think Warren has a prayer in hell. And it's because rather than trying to find a niche as a pragmatic progressive (like many Democrats from Massachusetts are) between Biden and Bernie, she chose to try and out compete Bernie, which was probably a mistake in retrospect.

[TexasRules]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...-7b31935103d9/

Washington post recently poled African Americans about the democratic candidates. Interesting notes: (Of the 1108 polled, 769 leaned democratic)

To the 769 who leaned Democrat, the survey asked: “If the Democratic primary or caucus in your state were held today, for whom would you vote? Which candidate would you lean toward?”

Joe Biden 48
Bernie Sanders 20
Elizabeth Warren 9
Mike Bloomberg 4
Cory Booker 4
Andrew Yang 3
Pete Buttigieg 2
Tom Steyer 2


Second choice would be:
Bernie Sanders 24
Elizabeth Warren 20
Joe Biden 17
Cory Booker 8
Mike Bloomberg 5
Amy Klobuchar 4
Pete Buttigieg 3
Tom Steyer 3

I think this clearly show African Americans support Biden over any and Sanders a not so close second. 44% of Democrat-leaning African American voters said they “would support any of the candidates above.”

[Blur4stuff]

I favored Warren over Sanders to begin with. I swapped them after she messed up on healthcare.

I still think she would be a better president than Biden, of course. If the race came down to Warren vs Sanders I'd be pretty damn happy.

[mvaliz]

Biden can beat Trump. Bernie might be able too, but the road is narrower. I don't think Warren has a prayer in hell. And it's because rather than trying to find a niche as a pragmatic progressive (like many Democrats from Massachusetts are) between Biden and Bernie, she chose to try and out compete Bernie, which was probably a mistake in retrospect.

I'd say Biden/Bernie are at the same odds with eachother IMO with running against Dump at this point, I don't care how much of this mythical "crossover" you think still exists from Bush days... because it doesn't IMO. People have pointed out that Dumbass Dump's appeal wasn't just the states... but that he was supposed to be "different". Well... they certainly got different! >.>

Biden doesn't represent that...he represents the Obama parts that people bailed on in the first place, particularly for all the aweful gaffs he's been putting out. Bernie DOES represent different, but he's been also successfully stained with "GYEEAAHHSOCIALIZZZMZ!!!", which is why I put their odds at being the same for eachother. Anybody who voted Dump but feel burned by him aren't going to vote back to Biden more than Sanders. Hell, even in Michigan Sanders won by a country mile over Clinton in the elections.

In regards to Warren, I'm really shocked at how much she dropped the ball - But I'm still laying odds that Warren's going to be Bernie's VP (by design choice since the beginning) if he gets the nomination.

[Blur4stuff]

I don't think there exists even a handful of people that favor Trump, but would vote democrat if Biden was the nominee. If any republican really wanted to vote dem because Trump is so bad then they did so in 2016 because we've known how terrible of a person he is from the start.

Of course, maybe some people that voted for Trump because they thought, "fuck it let's see what happens" may certainly vote for Biden. I think they'd vote for Warren/Sanders too because they now see how bad Trump is.

This is 100% about turnout and motivating people on the left and middle to actually vote. Trump's vote count may depress a bit because he's been a terrible president, but those people aren't going to vote for either Biden or Sanders. I consider any current Trump supporter claiming they'd consider voting for Biden to be bullshitting.

[Benggaul]

Of course, maybe some people that voted for Trump because they thought, "fuck it let's see what happens" may certainly vote for Biden. I think they'd vote for Warren/Sanders too because they now see how bad Trump is.

I personally know 3 people who fit this description. They voted for Trump because they thought he'd "shake things up in Washington" and now that he has they see what a fucking bad idea that was, so they're going the whole "anything with a 'D' on it" route now even though they had been lifelong Republican voters.

[cubby]

I personally know 3 people who fit this description. They voted for Trump because they thought he'd "shake things up in Washington" and now that he has they see what a fucking bad idea that was, so they're going the whole "anything with a 'D' on it" route now even though they had been lifelong Republican voters.

I can't tell you how much hope that gives me.

[Benggaul]

I can't tell you how much hope that gives me.

I'm not counting any chickens. The past 3 years both on and off these boards have shown me there's no limit to how stupid his supporters can be. I'm also not encouraged by how much the Democratic candidates are attacking each other since that's the dumbest thing they could do--providing Trump's campaign with free ammunition. If Trump wins re-election it'll be due to a combination of two things: ignorant MAGA fanaticism and fatigued voter apathy.

- - - Updated - - -

And another candidate is out. This time it's Cory Booker throwing in the towel. Unsurprising, but this has dragged on too long regardless.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-ca...source=twitter

[Paranoid Android]

Breaking: @SencoryGardner
refuses to answer question whether it is appropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate a rival. Quite the exchange in Denver #copolitics #kdvr

I hope every Dem runs and ad of every Republican Senator on record stating this. It is a obvious and simple statement to always say "if this the other party President, would you be fine with this". I don't know if this is effective on voters, but my goodness it should be. For all the people who bitch about partisan politics, this is grad A partisanship.

Yes, Gardner is in trouble in Colorado and I just cannot believe he wants to state this.

[CostinR]

Regarding the arguments of who's best to beat Donald Trump, it seems a dialogue that's taking place with some people that don't care about the facts and instead are trying to make it seem their proffered candidate is the one with the highest chance. When reality is shown to us time and again by the polling.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...eral_election/

In poll after poll the most consistent situation is that the person doing best against Donald Trump is Joe Biden, followed in a reasonable second place by Bernie Sanders then in a more distant third by Elizabeth Warren and then Pete Buttigieg.

Bloomberg is a real wild card but it's hard to determine how well he'd go given his current campaign situation.

Can Sanders win? Absolutely, though it would be a far closer race then many would like to believe around here. Can Biden win? Yes and a in a better state then Sanders because he'd have a shot at winning Florida, at not having a loss in Virgnia and at remaking the blue wall and not having Trump Ninja a state from him.

Sander's Electoral Map



You're looking at Trump just needing to win any of the undecided states and within reach of potentially turning Virgnia red to wining reelection. Meanwhile.

Biden

[Edge-]

Fox News has a new, totally not racially motivated, reason why Booker ended his campaign: He's lazy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...a=twitter_page

No, seriously, that was their argument.

[Skroe]

Welp, nice to see Bernie return to his 2016 scorched earth form. I guess he figured the math out at last too: the primary ain't big enough for him and Warren in the same lane... that being the case hands the nomination to Biden.

Thank god this election represents the final end to a miserable political career.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say Biden/Bernie are at the same odds with eachother IMO with running against Dump at this point, I don't care how much of this mythical "crossover" you think still exists from Bush days... because it doesn't IMO. People have pointed out that Dumbass Dump's appeal wasn't just the states... but that he was supposed to be "different". Well... they certainly got different! >.>

Biden doesn't represent that...he represents the Obama parts that people bailed on in the first place, particularly for all the aweful gaffs he's been putting out. Bernie DOES represent different, but he's been also successfully stained with "GYEEAAHHSOCIALIZZZMZ!!!", which is why I put their odds at being the same for eachother. Anybody who voted Dump but feel burned by him aren't going to vote back to Biden more than Sanders. Hell, even in Michigan Sanders won by a country mile over Clinton in the elections.

In regards to Warren, I'm really shocked at how much she dropped the ball - But I'm still laying odds that Warren's going to be Bernie's VP (by design choice since the beginning) if he gets the nomination.

No offense, but I'm just sitting here blinking and thinking *boy progressives love to be validated*.

What precisely does Warren offer Bernie that he doesn't have? Both are from the north East. Both are ideologically very similar. Both appeal to a similar type of progressive voter (Bernie more working class, Warren more educated).

I know the progressives envision some progressive calvary charge, but that's not how this works. The modern - and successful - for VP picks is generally to unite factions of a party and fill in gaps the Presidential nominee doesn't have. So you had young black man Barack Obama who was not part of the establishment team up with seasoned establishment figure Biden. So you had Donald Trump team up with Pence. So you had centrist Mitt Romney team up with conservative darling Paul Ryan. So you had Bush (a young man at the time with a centrist cred) team up with the old warhorse Dick Cheney.

THis is why I've said for month that Biden's most logical team up is with Stacy Abrams. She is strong where Biden is generally weak (except the black vote at large). She is popular in places Biden could cause a lot of havoc for Trump. She is popular among progressives. She cancels the "white dude ticket". And it makes 78 year old Biden look like a caretaker president until a Stacy 2024 campaign. It's a much stronger political narrative than Bernie-Warren.

Who would be Bernie's ideal running mate? Someone towards the center and strong in African American communities, particularly in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I don't know who that would be realistically. There may not be such a person, except Biden.

One more thing... British politics are different, but in some ways similar it's incredible to me how progressives are hell bent on Jeremy Corbyning themselves. I mean progressive groups don't really care. As I explained previously, they win if the progressive candidate wins, and they win if the progressive candidate loses. It's incredible that progressive individuals fall for it. The United States is a vast, ideologically diverse country and you win here not by getting out the base - a model favored by base centric gorups because it enhances their power - but by expanding the voting pool with crossover appeal. Obama did it in 2008 and 2012. Trump did it in 2016. Bush did it in 2000 and 2004. And yet this mythic persists - perpetuated for self serving reasons by special interests groups and ideologous - that every election is a base election. As far as the Presidential election goes, there hasn't been a "get out the base" election win in memory. It may never have actually happened.

The politics of addition are what wins. And it's simple math to progressives: are there enough progressives in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and New Mexico (the latter 3 matter less) to ensure a win while not engaging potential crossover voters and voter pool expansion? The evidence to date is no. No even close. Progressives do not exist in the numbers in those areas to win, even if every single one of them turned out. So how can there be any strategy based around them? Because it's voters in Wisconsin that will deliver the Presidency, not Brooklyn.

Honestly, we've explained the strat for years now. It's almost time. Run the strat to con the rubes of Wisconsin to making the right choice for a change. It's the way forward, at least in 2020.

Or we going to be suckered by coastal progressive groups again that become flush with cash and see their influence rise, win or lose? Not everyone on your team is playing for the same goal. There are Democrats who want to win in 2020 and their are Democrats who want to transform the party.

[mvaliz]

No offense, but I'm just sitting here blinking and thinking *boy progressives love to be validated*.

Says the man who feels compelled to write two-to-three in-depth political opinion essays every night. ;P

What precisely does Warren offer Bernie that he doesn't have? Both are from the north East. Both are ideologically very similar. Both appeal to a similar type of progressive voter (Bernie more working class, Warren more educated).

Ummm...yeah? That's kinda the idea of what a VP is suposed to be - especially when Age is a factor, you want "Bernie" and "The Young Bernie who's going to survive", among other things.

Hillary tried the old outdated tactics you're talking about with that one guy - and it failed spectacularly (among many other problems).

In the old world (and maybe a decade+ post-Dump Era) that would work, but today that's a dumb tactic to try to appease anybody remotely republican as they're on board with Dump.

I mean, I get the idea and logic behind your suggested political maneuvering, but clearly you don't see the effect Warren has on other states you're talking about, and you clearly don't see the battle that's raging on - starting with Dumbass Dump.

Who would be Bernie's ideal running mate? Someone towards the center and strong in African American communities, particularly in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I don't know who that would be realistically. There may not be such a person, except Biden.

That's Warren. Warren polls very well with African American communities, particularly in North Carolina of all places. Not sure how you missed that. =/

Many midwestern states also like their pro-union stances.

Not everybody in the south is "anti-progressive" as you may think. Indeed, most of the time people have shown over and over again that when you talk to people about the progressive policies individually (Medicare for All / Education for all/ ect) most of the states love those ideas - so long as you don't use the word "liberal" next to them.

So, why bother even getting a "midwest" person to appeal to one state while it alienates several others then? THey're all going to be tarred with "Liberal Socialist" no matter what at this point.

[Shadowferal]

I'll repeat again that if Biden taps Warren for VP then this is done.
Biden and Warren working together can readily take this.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'll repeat again that if Biden taps Warren for VP then this is done.
Biden and Warren working together can readily take this.

And the US can go back, happily, to the status quo and nothing will change for the better for the vast majority.

[Shadowferal]

And the US can go back, happily, to the status quo and nothing will change for the better for the vast majority.

*sigh*
At this point I think we can readily define "status quo" as "near sanity."
(In some ways I agree...but we're on the crazy train now)

[I Push Buttons]

And the US can go back, happily, to the status quo and nothing will change for the better for the vast majority.

Nothing is going to change if comrade Sanders gets elected either.

Probably less than nothing. Most Democrats not only wouldn't do him any favors while he's in office, they are liable to undermine him right alongside Republicans.

Why would they do anything to help the outsider who shunned their establishment for decades only to swoop in and try to use their name for his own political gain and essentially usurp control of their party?

Spoiler: They wouldn't.

[Ghostpanther]

I'll repeat again that if Biden taps Warren for VP then this is done.
Biden and Warren working together can readily take this.

I hope he picks her.

[beanman12345]

I hope he picks her.

Why, I thought you wanted Trump to win?

[JohnBrown1917]

*sigh*
At this point I think we can readily define "status quo" as "near sanity."
(In some ways I agree...but we're on the crazy train now)

The problem is that the status quo is what leads to these far right nutjobs getting popular(GoP in the US, Boris/ukip in the UK, SD in Sweden etc..). Trump is merely a symptom, not the disease.