Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[tyrlaan]

I'd say so as well. A Yang or a Gabbard or a Sanders on the ticket is probably one of the only ways to keep those voters on side. Though I am unsure Sanders would take a VP slot, Maybe he would? But I am unsure.

He threw his support to Clinton after losing the primary. He'd take a VP slot

[Theodarzna]

He threw his support to Clinton after losing the primary. He'd take a VP slot

True. He probably would go for it. If anything had Clinton had enough sense she would have done that last time. But, we lack time travel so O'well.

[nonameelf]

Seems Gabbard's main goal is to cause fighting in the Democrat party.

There's literally no reason at all for there to be some grand conspiracy against her. She's polling at like 1% of the vote.

[Theodarzna]

Seems Gabbard's main goal is to cause fighting in the Democrat party.

There's literally no reason at all for there to be some grand conspiracy against her. She's polling at like 1% of the vote.

She is causing infighting? Pffft, I'd say the establishmentarians and Clinton did more to cause actual fighting than Gabbard did, unless her mere existence and having the insolence to run is the problem.

[the game]

The primary? She already has said she beat Trump once and can do it again. lol! The gal can not get over the fact she lost to Trump and wants another shot at it. I do not think she will run, but I would not feel shocked if she does or at least for the moment, is giving it serous consideration.

I mean we just put up with 4 years of her complaining and making up excuses on why she lost. So it's funny she says now that she won.

[nonameelf]

She is causing infighting? Pffft, I'd say the establishmentarians and Clinton did more to cause actual fighting than Gabbard did, unless her mere existence and having the insolence to run is the problem.

No, the whole "The DNC is conspiring against me!" crap is causing division. There's no logical reason at all for the DNC to conspire against her since she's polling sub 1% most of the time. It's nonsense.

[Theodarzna]

No, the whole "The DNC is conspiring against me!" crap is causing division. There's no logical reason at all for the DNC to conspire against her since she's polling sub 1% most of the time. It's nonsense.

Well, given how many media figures and Clinton herself called her a Russian spook; It isn't unreasonable to assume there isn't some clique with a grudge and bad blood against her. Clinton is still salty from 2016.

[Dextroden]

She is causing infighting? Pffft, I'd say the establishmentarians and Clinton did more to cause actual fighting than Gabbard did, unless her mere existence and having the insolence to run is the problem.

Well, to be fair. How many years later is it and it's still the Bernie Bros that are still the reason Clinton lost despite the claim their numbers are insignificant?

- - - Updated - - -

No, the whole "The DNC is conspiring against me!" crap is causing division. There's no logical reason at all for the DNC to conspire against her since she's polling sub 1% most of the time. It's nonsense.

Either she and her followers are insignificant or they are somehow going to spoil everything because something about Russians.

You have to pick one.

[nonameelf]

Either she and her followers are insignificant or they are somehow going to spoil everything because something about Russians.

You have to pick one.

It's not about her followers. It's about creating the idea that the DNC isn't running fair primaries which could turn away independent voters.

[Elegiac]

I’d advise all of you to take Republican electoral advice with a grain of salt since they generally aren’t capable of winning elections without voter suppression or gerrymandering and it is usually just a form of concern trolling. Listening to such people is how the “don’t do X it’ll rile up Trump’s base” myth got such big traction.

Especially commentary on how Gabbard is going to “split the party” when she’s literally as marginal a candidate as Klobuchar. She might not even win her own district next year for Christ’s sake, due to a primary challenge from the left.

The concern is about spoiler candidates running on third party tickets. Basically Gabbard becoming the next Jill Stein.

[Dextroden]

It's not about her followers. It's about creating the idea that the DNC isn't running fair primaries which could turn away independent voters.

You don't have to create that idea. It's called the 2016 primaries. It was a glorious showcase of preferred treatment.

[Shadowferal]

No, the whole "The DNC is conspiring against me!" crap is causing division. There's no logical reason at all for the DNC to conspire against her since she's polling sub 1% most of the time. It's nonsense.

I disagree that it's causing any division at all, since as you say she's not really pulling any significant numbers.
But if her rhetoric keeps the DNC honest I have no problem with her.

[beanman12345]

Wisconsin snip

Didn't Bernie win Wisconsin by like 10+ points in 2016? I put 0 faith in any of those polls. I'd put my faith on the ones who can win the primaries in those states.

[cubby]

Some primary headlines.

- In one poll (Quinipiac), Warren leads Biden nationally by 7 points.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ationally-poll

- In another poll (CNN/SSRS), Biden has his bigged national lead since April, 34% to 19% for Warren.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/23/p...mpression=true

- In a third poll, Biden leads Trump by 6 points in Wisconsin (down from 9 points). You want this to be 7+ Democrats. Bernie leads by 2, Warren by 1, and everyone else trails.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...sconsin-055929

- Big dollar fundraisers are not enough for Biden compared to small-donor fundraising... but Big dollar fundraisers for biden are also donating VERY widely to cover all their bases, and will be fine with most anybody it seems. Really good infographic on the link.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...raising-056246

In short, there is no emerging clarity to anything. Sometimes Biden is *clearly* the guy. Sometimes he's not.

I will say again. Wisconsin. Wisconsin. Wisconsin. Democrats winning Pennsylvania and Michigan, to lose Wisconsin narrowly, give Trump a 2nd term. This is not to say "GO WITH BIDEN NOW YOU FOOLS!". But it is to say, if it is going to be anyone but Biden, specifically Warren, the only polls that matter over the next year is how they look in Wisconsin. And this goes for Biden too, who needs to turn +6 into minimum +8.

But that being said, polls in November 2019 indicating voter intent don't matter any more than polls in November 2015 did. They're a waypoint, but not law. It just needs to be watched like a hawk and worked on. By no matter who wins.

I'm just going to say right now, if it's August 2020, and Warren is the candidate, and she's holding big rallies in New York City and you people (you know who you are) are talking about her fucken ideas and appeal, I'm going to lose it. I will go goddamn postal. Nominee Warren, Nominee Biden and Nominee Sanders needs to buy a home... multiple homes actually... and move all their friends, to the states where they are weakest, and Wisconsin is the the one they cannot lose, followed by PA, Michigan, Arizona and Florida, in that order. All while making sure Trump doesn't ninja Minnesota, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado. That is the strat. Not fucking New York City and the progressives who live there. They can get a mass pat on the butt after election day.

Because I swear to god... Trump is going to have a massive money advantage, and money means manpower and advertising. And if you people spend 5 months from June to November publicly masturbating over Medicare for All, when Trump gets a second term by winning Wisconsin, you'll goddamn deserve it and Trump won't have beaten you. You'll have beaten you.

Seriously. Run the fucking strat. Win Wisconsin. When you win, do what you want with the power. Hopefully by sending Trump and his crime family to jail for years.

I assume you're getting some of this strategic advice/ideas from the PAC you moonlight for - or is this just your analysis (not criticizing, just asking). Can you tell from their information if the DNC has this idea firmly in mind? Because Trump is going to OWN the fucking money advantage.

[Dextroden]

Question. Why are we still counting money as the key to victory when Hillary outspent Trump and lost?

Wouldn't that mean that smarter allocation of funds is far more important than just having more money? (Not saying Trump spent smarter.)

[cubby]

Question. Why are we still counting money as the key to victory when Hillary outspent Trump and lost?

Wouldn't that mean that smarter allocation of funds is far more important than just having more money? (Not saying Trump spent smarter.)

Because all factors going into an election are relevant, depending on each cycle. And Trump's already insane war chest is worth deep concern because at some level money can buy elections. Maybe not a national election in it's entirety, but it could buy the swing county in southern Wisconsin that gives Trump the state that gives Trump reelection that causes essentially modern society to collaps-...well, you get the point.

What you're saying is very valid, however, in that just having more money doesn't get you the win.

[Orbitus]

Schism the Dems?

Nah.

Anyone that actually chose to listen to Clinton's ill advised commentary already would have written off Gabbard as a candidate. And lets also not forget how much Gabbard has quickly moved into "also ran" status. Clinton's words haven't made Gabbard do a bad job at the debates (except for her Harris takedown), nor did they make her run a, for lack of a better word, immature campaign.

There can't be much of a schism when on one side you have someone less and less Dems are caring about. Ironically, Gabbard might want to thank Clinton for giving her some free press while her campaign struggles to stay relevant.

Considering no one really cares about Gabbard but Russian bots and Republicans that are pushing her? Nah. Gabbard will probably lose her primary in Hawaii, since they don't even like her.

[Elegiac]

I'm just going to say right now, if it's August 2020, and Warren is the candidate, and she's holding big rallies in New York City and you people (you know who you are) are talking about her fucken ideas and appeal, I'm going to lose it.

I'm curious why you think this is the likely outcome - actually no, I'm not, because it's using Clinton as the benchmark.

Generally speaking Warren's shown a good ability to target areas where support could be stronger; look at how she's started to peel the black vote away from Biden. I don't doubt that if she's the candidate she's going to be spending a lot of time in the Midwest since...you know.

Addressing income inequality and the decline of the American market is kinda her shtick, yeah?

[Dacien]

Trump's in trouble!

QUICK HIT THE PANIC BUTTON!




It's incredible these people think this shit still works, lol.

It's weird how every single time a Clinton aide says she hasn't ruled out running (and pretty much every time it's been either an aide or someone close to Hillary saying this), it's always derided as a right wing plot to deflect from Trump. Like, tell these Clinton folks to stop insinuating she'll run, fine, but how is right wing media in control of of what they say? In this case apparently it's Clinton herself, reported all over the place.

[Dextroden]

Because all factors going into an election are relevant, depending on each cycle. And Trump's already insane war chest is worth deep concern because at some level money can buy elections. Maybe not a national election in it's entirety, but it could buy the swing county in southern Wisconsin that gives Trump the state that gives Trump reelection that causes essentially modern society to collaps-...well, you get the point.

What you're saying is very valid, however, in that just having more money doesn't get you the win.

Then it sounds like Democrats need those big money investors that don't like Warren if large sums of cash are still required for victory. Or, I guess, ask for more from the not as wealthy.

It's a really interesting dance to take enough money to win an election but not look like you owe your big money donors more than the average donor.