Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[cubby]

In those states sure but, the other states like California and NY it's going to be harder for Joe. Again, when it comes time for Joe vs Trump, who will those people vote for? Will the progressives even vote?

Given the current political climate, and the immense polarization Trump has created, California and New York will only have their Electioral votes going for (D). In no way shape or form will either state carry a vote for Trump. IIRC, and I'll have to double check, no poll this year or last has Trump even remotely close to winning the EC vote for either state. It won't even matter if the progressives vote. AND, this is now - Sanders' peeps are still upset and reeling in their loss. That's fine. Bun in eight months, with Biden looking Presidential every one of those days, and Trump trying for his 30,000th lie, those progressives will be coming out in force to vote for Biden. Because getting Trump out has always been the goal, regardless of who the (D) candidate is.

And I'm not trying throwing this in your face. You make a very good point. Because of the above, those states don't matter. No (D) candidate should even show up to campaign. Take the contribution money and run to the EC Battleground states (WI, MI, PA, FL, NC).

[Rukh]

In those states sure but, the other states like California and NY it's going to be harder for Joe. Again, when it comes time for Joe vs Trump, who will those people vote for? Will the progressives even vote?

Trump isn't going to win NY or California, and it's not even going to be close. And the election doesn't hinge on whether Biden beats Trump by 60-40 or by 85-15. It's irrelevant.

[DarkTZeratul]

In those states sure but, the other states like California and NY it's going to be harder for Joe. Again, when it comes time for Joe vs Trump, who will those people vote for? Will the progressives even vote?

And Skroe's point is that that's an irrelevant concern; both states will almost certainly go Democrat regardless.

[Skroe]

In those states sure but, the other states like California and NY it's going to be harder for Joe. Again, when it comes time for Joe vs Trump, who will those people vote for? Will the progressives even vote?

With all due respect, do you understand the American electoral system? We elect Presidents with the electoral college, not the national popular vote.

California and New York are Democrat+30 and Democrat+23 respectively. Literally every progressive could stay home, and a Democrat will win those two states by very large double digits because Trump-voting Republicans and independents do not live in California and New York in comparatively large numbers.

It makes ZERO sense to try and appease progressives in a states Democrats will easily win without even visiting, when the states that will decide the election in the electoral college are the six I mentioned are decided by independent centrists and so forth.

The fact I have to explain this at this point is disturbing. The national popular vote is irrelevant and the support of progressives in New York and California are irrelevant. They can stay home. I'm from Massachusetts. My state is Democrat+27. I can stay home election day too.

But expanding the number of likely voters by appealing to the people who live there in the 6 swing states, which does NOT include large numbers of progressives, is how a Democrat will win the White House.

This is progressives problem. Too many of them live in New York, not enough of them live in Wisconsin.

[Milchshake]

In hindsight, it was an error for Bernie's campaign to spend two weeks lowering expectations for Biden who has been strong by any measure but especially against the caricature of cognitive decline raised by a lot of Bernie's supporters.


Stupid memes, but from the 4chan of the left . Bernie should fire these losers, but he wont
<he doesnt want to win>

[Muzjhath]

But expanding the number of likely voters by appealing to the people who live there in the 6 swing states, which does NOT include large numbers of progressives, is how a Democrat will win the White House.

This is progressives problem. Too many of them live in New York, not enough of them live in Wisconsin.

I'll make a small thought/correction.
There might well live 10-15% progressives in those states. However courting them is mostly a waste of time since they might just not vote anyway. So why bother fishing for them when you can fish for people who will vote no matter what?

[Merkava]

One of the reasons I think Abrams might have already been approached by both Biden and Sanders is her reluctance to run for either open Senate seat in Georgia. I can't recall offhand if there were any solid arguments offered by her or her staff for passing, outside of working on voter registration (which she has done before).

Warren either as Senator (and outside chance at Senate Majority Leader if there is a flip) or SecTreas would be interesting.

When it seemed like Biden was taking so long to announce his candidacy, I remember people speculating that he might decide to enter the race while simultaneously offerring up a VP selection (I was relieved that he didn't) and that people were speculating that it might be Abrams. Of course, Warren and Harris were otherwise enageed at the time.

As much as I would love to see Warren destroy Pence in a debate, is there anyway at all that choosing Abrams would put Georgia in play for Biden?

[cubby]

When it seemed like Biden was taking so long to announce his candidacy, I remember people speculating that he might decide to enter the race while simultaneously offerring up a VP selection (I was relieved that he didn't) and that people were speculating that it might be Abrams. Of course, Warren and Harris were otherwise enageed at the time.

As much as I would love to see Warren destroy Pence in a debate, is there anyway at all that choosing Abrams would put Georgia in play for Biden?

I am glad as well that Biden didn't choose early re VP. I would like Warren on the ticket, more for feels rather than strategy - she was my first choice, and I think that whomever Biden chooses as VP will be running for the top job in 2024/2028. Harris would be a bad choice, although she is a great pick for AG/Cabinet.

Abrams would indeed put Georgia into play for Biden, if not for an outside chance of winning, just making the GOP spend time and money to defend EC votes they considered "theirs" and therefore safe. PLUS, Abrams, as @Skroe pointed out, would electrify the south, making FL and maybe even TX scary places for the GOP, where they could lose (FL) and would have (again) spend time and resources to defend to keep (TX).

Plus, while Warren would indeed destroy Pence in any verbal competition, Abrams is pretty fucking bright herself. She will wipe the floor with Pence, if he bothers to show up and sit (alone) at a table with a woman other than his wife.

[Skroe]

In hindsight, it was an error for Bernie's campaign to spend two weeks lowering expectations for Biden who has been strong by any measure but especially against the caricature of cognitive decline raised by a lot of Bernie's supporters.


Stupid memes, but from the 4chan of the left . Bernie should fire these losers, but he wont
<he doesnt want to win>

One of my great hopes for this election is that it reminds the American people how utterly diseased and un-American cults of personality are.

American politicians have been popular before. Very popular. Nothing strange about that. But what we've seen with Bernie and Trump since 2016 goes way, way behind that. It's personal. It's not just about the ideas, but it's about the man. That's new and strange and unacceptable. And it needs to go away.

Bernie supporters in particular say it isn't about the man. Hogwash. Their response to Bernie's heart attack shows it is about the man. Their attacks on Warren all fall and winter shows it is about the man. People who contort themselves to defending Bernie's factually wrong and politically counterproductive (for his own campaign) comments on Cuba and now China make it about the man.

This is not a healthy candidate-supporter relationship. In prior American campaigns, when the candidate fucked up, the supporters demanded accountability. Even with Obama. Even with JFK. But not with Trump and not with Sanders. When the candidate fucks up, not just the candidates staff circles the wagons, but every day supporters start to act like surrogates and campaign staff. Maybe that's a product of social media, but it's deeply unhealthy for democracy.

Why do I say that? Because Trump (not Sanders in this case) is what you get when you have a politician who understands his supporters devotion to him is limitless. That he can shoot a person in broad daylight and they'd blame the person. Sanders doesn't go quite that far of course, but it cannot be normalized on the left either that the candidate should have no fear of doing or saying the wrong thing. Sanders should have been chastened by his supporters have his Cuba comments on 60 minutes, but instead because of his supporters failure to hold him to account, he tonight goes and does it again.

This is beneath the American people. We have to be better than this. Politicians are servants. And they should be supported for sure and empowered to act on our behalf, but they need to live in a perpetual state of fear about screwing up. To offer an side story on this of sorts, my brother until last year worked on Public Accountability / Internal affairs in New York City. He prosecuted corrupt cops and public officials as an Assistant District Attorney. And to relay what his office hands now as they bring prosecutors aboard, the logic of accountability is quite simple - if you have the public trust... if the public empowers you to perform a job on their behalf, that means you are MORE accountable not less and you get LESS chances not more. For cops, you don't go easy on them because they have a hard job. A one-strike-and-you're-out policy is another word for quality control.

Americans used to have that mindset for our elected leaders. But we got soft. We started going easy on politicians we liked. Probably after Watergate because of the ostensible national trauma of it. That needs to be reversed. We should be merciless to public officials and leaders ho make errors in judgement and act irresponsibly. We should demand the highest performance and ethical standards from candidates and public servants.

And translating to our elections, when candidates fail, the only proper response in a healthy democracy is "toss them out, next one up". The clean-up job with Republicans to get them past the Trump cult-like behavior is gargantuan. But with Sanders supporters, the fact they didn't tell him to retire after his heart attack and let Warren by the standard bearer shows how much even parts of the left need to re-normalize their political behavior to treat candidate-supporter relationships as largely transnational in nature.

In short, attachment is the death of quality control.

- - - Updated - - -

I am glad as well that Biden didn't choose early re VP. I would like Warren on the ticket, more for feels rather than strategy - she was my first choice, and I think that whomever Biden chooses as VP will be running for the top job in 2024/2028. Harris would be a bad choice, although she is a great pick for AG/Cabinet.

Abrams would indeed put Georgia into play for Biden, if not for an outside chance of winning, just making the GOP spend time and money to defend EC votes they considered "theirs" and therefore safe. PLUS, Abrams, as @Skroe pointed out, would electrify the south, making FL and maybe even TX scary places for the GOP, where they could lose (FL) and would have (again) spend time and resources to defend to keep (TX).

Plus, while Warren would indeed destroy Pence in any verbal competition, Abrams is pretty fucking bright herself. She will wipe the floor with Pence, if he bothers to show up and sit (alone) at a table with a woman other than his wife.

Exactly. Don't expect to win Florida and Georgia. But make them work for it, so it increases the odds of winning Florida.

Of the six states - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida:
-Minus Florida, and combination of 3, plus the typical Democratic states wins over 270 electoral votes.
-Winning Florida however means a Democrat only has to win ONE of the other five states.
-Looking at it from the other side a winning Republican map WITHOUT Florida is a very strange / unlikely one. It is unlikely Democrats win Florida, and then lose Michigan, Wisconsin and PA, in other words.

Florida just opens up so many options for Democrats and makes the campaign much easier to win... in theory. I say this because the Wisconsin poll numbers of topics from January are horrifying for ANY Democrat looking to win there, and I don't trust Wisconsinites to make the right decision. But on the other hand, as I've said a lot recently, the Florida Democratic Party is a shitshow that can't get out the vote in what should be a D+6 state, while the Florida Republican Party is one of the most professional operations in the country and has its shit very much in order.

Democrats just need to work very hard to try and win Florida. I'm not sure precisely how they do that, given the FDP's tendency to get in its own way, but I do not trust any map for Democrats that requires Arizona, Wisconsin or North Carolina.

Abrams + Biden is Democrats best chance in Florida. They both speak to different sets of voters in the state. Abrams to younger people and minorities. Biden to old folks who used to live in blue states and centrists. That's why I think that's the play. It feeds different demographics.

When evaluating any VP, I think the question needs to be asked "who delivers Florida the best?". It really should come down to that. It's so old-school politics, but it's damn logical this time around, because I simply do not see Trump winning without Florida.

[Rogue Karl]

One of my great hopes for this election is that it reminds the American people how utterly diseased and un-American cults of personality are.

American politicians have been popular before. Very popular. Nothing strange about that. But what we've seen with Bernie and Trump since 2016 goes way, way behind that. It's personal. It's not just about the ideas, but it's about the man. That's new and strange and unacceptable. And it needs to go away.

Bernie supporters in particular say it isn't about the man. Hogwash. Their response to Bernie's heart attack shows it is about the man. Their attacks on Warren all fall and winter shows it is about the man. People who contort themselves to defending Bernie's factually wrong and politically counterproductive (for his own campaign) comments on Cuba and now China make it about the man.

This is not a healthy candidate-supporter relationship. In prior American campaigns, when the candidate fucked up, the supporters demanded accountability. Even with Obama. Even with JFK. But not with Trump and not with Sanders. When the candidate fucks up, not just the candidates staff circles the wagons, but every day supporters start to act like surrogates and campaign staff. Maybe that's a product of social media, but it's deeply unhealthy for democracy.

Why do I say that? Because Trump (not Sanders in this case) is what you get when you have a politician who understands his supporters devotion to him is limitless. That he can shoot a person in broad daylight and they'd blame the person. Sanders doesn't go quite that far of course, but it cannot be normalized on the left either that the candidate should have no fear of doing or saying the wrong thing. Sanders should have been chastened by his supporters have his Cuba comments on 60 minutes, but instead because of his supporters failure to hold him to account, he tonight goes and does it again.

This is beneath the American people. We have to be better than this. Politicians are servants. And they should be supported for sure and empowered to act on our behalf, but they need to live in a perpetual state of fear about screwing up. To offer an side story on this of sorts, my brother until last year worked on Public Accountability / Internal affairs in New York City. He prosecuted corrupt cops and public officials as an Assistant District Attorney. And to relay what his office hands now as they bring prosecutors aboard, the logic of accountability is quite simple - if you have the public trust... if the public empowers you to perform a job on their behalf, that means you are MORE accountable not less and you get LESS chances not more. For cops, you don't go easy on them because they have a hard job. A one-strike-and-you're-out policy is another word for quality control.

Americans used to have that mindset for our elected leaders. But we got soft. We started going easy on politicians we liked. Probably after Watergate because of the ostensible national trauma of it. That needs to be reversed. We should be merciless to public officials and leaders ho make errors in judgement and act irresponsibly. We should demand the highest performance and ethical standards from candidates and public servants.

And translating to our elections, when candidates fail, the only proper response in a healthy democracy is "toss them out, next one up". The clean-up job with Republicans to get them past the Trump cult-like behavior is gargantuan. But with Sanders supporters, the fact they didn't tell him to retire after his heart attack and let Warren by the standard bearer shows how much even parts of the left need to re-normalize their political behavior to treat candidate-supporter relationships as largely transnational in nature.

In short, attachment is the death of quality control.

I think you just put to much faith in the average voter. Most of this is due to the rise of social media and the ever increasing restrictions on speech.

Back in the good old days people would have to go outside and speak to other people to express their moronic beliefs. They would promptly be ridiculed and told to fuck off.

Now though with online media and increasing intolerance for people being rude to one another this destructive behavior has spiraled out of control. The people who used to be held in check are now given a soap box to mix with the other crazies while being protected from the sane population.

That leads us to our current reality.

[Milchshake]

Is the Sanders campaign telling people not to vote on Tuesday?

For the money Bernie has and spent, it's remarkable how much has been vaporware. Truly the campaign his voter base deserves. The's the Duke Nukem Forever of campaigns.

Lack of outreach to older voters
Lack of outreach to rural voters
Lack of outreach to African American voters

[Skroe]

Also curious about this.


On a different note, whomever you support aside, would people agree this debate was generally better with regards to its lack of audience?

100%. It's crazy it took 11 debates to get down to two people actually debating (not reciting stump speeches) and no distractions. The DNC needs to cut it down to like, 4 candidates after New Hampshire (if there is a New Hampshire next time), and 2-3 before Super Tuesday. And no debates should have audiences at all, unless they are town-hall style debates where the 2-3 candidates sit in the middle of am amphitheater and get shot questions by the audience.

But if it is a moderated debate with journalists asking questions, this is the superior format by far. No crowd playing nonsense. No crowd reaction. Just two people going back and forth, as it should be, without distractions.

Hopefully this does to debates what having a hostless Oscars did to that. All red Meat, no fluff.

- - - Updated - - -

When Bernie most/all the states on Tuesday, he should drop out.

[Collegeguy]

Also curious about this.


On a different note, whomever you support aside, would people agree this debate was generally better with regards to its lack of audience?

I felt like it was much more improved without an audience as well from COVID-19.

From the little that I saw, it felt a lot more focused without heckling, boos, and interruptions from the audience.

It actually felt like a discussion between two people instead of room full of drama. Makes it easier to form your own opinion.

They should make this permanent.

[Jehct]

I'd rather lose with Biden then try with Bernard. And that's because I think Biden has a better chance in Florida and Wisconsin than Bernie does.

It doesn't matter how many young people in California Bernie can inspire in his fake revolution. Biden has the better shot of getting out old white people, blacks and suburban women Wisconsin and Florida.

It's as simple as that. If Biden loses, we can't claim that we didn't apply the most optimal strategy we had to win crucial electoral votes at the time.

And as for the debates... debates don't move voters in the first place. Secondly, Hillary dominated Trump 3 times and still lost. Third, I don't expect Trump to actually attend any debates even though he's currently promised too. He'll want to avoid answering questions about his failure of leadership. He'll hold a rally instead.

sounds good. I'll continue to read your replies to posts about how Trumps sucks the next 4 years. Damn we all could have been reading your posts about Bernie but now its gonna be more Trump. I was looking forward to it too

[Skroe]

sounds good. I'll continue to read your replies to posts about how Trumps sucks the next 4 years. Damn we all could have been reading your posts about Bernie but now its gonna be more Trump. I was looking forward to it too

If you think Trump is going to be re-elected after his failure to deal with the Coronavirus crisis as the bodies pile up, you're dreaming.

[Sorshen]

If you think Trump is going to be re-elected after his failure to deal with the Coronavirus crisis as the bodies pile up, you're dreaming.

Famous last words.

[Skroe]

Famous last words.

The only last words I'd be concerned about if I were you is those of many American's parents and grandparents, all because Donald Trump decided to downplay the crisis and call it a hoax for two months rather than have his government buy and deploy testing kits. He was more concerned about optics than protecting Americans lives and their way of life.

And he will pay for it. If this hits as hard as even the lower bound of modeling suggests it will, the American people will utterly devour Donald Trump in retribution. You can add that to your sig too.

[Merkava]

I felt like it was much more improved without an audience as well from COVID-19.

From the little that I saw, it felt a lot more focused without heckling, boos, and interruptions from the audience.

It actually felt like a discussion between two people instead of room full of drama. Makes it easier to form your own opinion.

They should make this permanent.

I agree totally. It was less a joint press conference and more of an actual debate.

[ati87]

The only last words I'd be concerned about if I were you is those of many American's parents and grandparents, all because Donald Trump decided to downplay the crisis and call it a hoax for two months rather than have his government buy and deploy testing kits. He was more concerned about optics than protecting Americans lives and their way of life.

And he will pay for it. If this hits as hard as even the lower bound of modeling suggests it will, the American people will utterly devour Donald Trump in retribution. You can add that to your sig too.

As you said before though, it's a cult of personality. Hopefully the virus will be semi gone ASAP and once that happens people will kind of ''forget'' in a month how bad the Trump response was.

[Skroe]

As you said before though, it's a cult of personality. Hopefully the virus will be semi gone ASAP and once that happens people will kind of ''forget'' in a month how bad the Trump response was.

I think this is going to go on for the rest of the year. It's going to go on until there is a vaccine and mass vaccination. Our way of life is irrecoverably altered for some time to come. And Trump _will_ have to answer to the loved ones of the deceased. Make no mistake, during the election, a widow or widower will ask Trump why he took no responsibility in March 2020.

The cult needs as perfect turnout as they had in 2016. I think this will make it impossible. I think this will do to Trump what 2008 did to Bush-era Republicans. People vote in the name of fear and anger far more than they do in terms of ideas, and Trump has single handedly created a situation where people are angry at him and fearful of what comes next.