2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[kellyb]

Some (even most) will do everything they can to stop the 'Evil Librul Democrats', others will actually be less energized, unless they can see an actual threat (such as Sanders taking away people's private insurance.) Granted we are only talking about a minority of Republicans, but when you have elections that are decided on only a few thousand votes in a couple of swing states, then even getting a few of the less eager republicans to sit out the 2020 election can make a difference.

You have to pay attention to voter enthusiasm/turnout on the democratic side, too, though.

A candidate that can further motivate a Republican to vote against the democratic candidate can also inspire an even greater degree of turnout from left-leaning voters to vote FOR a candidate. This is what we saw with the nazi-communist-Kenyan Candidate Obama.

After all, despite significant evidence that Trump was a racist, many african American voters who had supported Obama sat out the 2016 election. Sometimes motivation matters.

That's sort of my point. Obama won because he inspired even greater turnout on the left side of the ledger.

 

[kellyb]

I don't know if anyone here would have believed it. But, we're not exactly typical of the American electorate. I suspect a large portion of the general electorate would believe her when she said she was against the TPP.

I saw the same thing from all the pro as well as anti-Clinton people I know on facebook, too, on local and national political boards.

Nobody believed it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't know if anyone here would have believed it. But, we're not exactly typical of the American electorate. I suspect a large portion of the general electorate would believe her when she said she was against the TPP.

I think the overall takeaway was that she is someone who will say whatever sounds pleasing to whoever is in front of her at that moment or appeases whatever concern was just brought up. This unfortunately reminds a lot of people of someone in their own life, probably a good bit in the past, and probably not the greatest memories. Especially not if they were in a position of relative authority and got caught up in decisions that came out of the ether (and then perhaps about-faced just as quickly at some point later...).

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You have to pay attention to voter enthusiasm/turnout on the democratic side, too, though.

A candidate that can further motivate a Republican to vote against the democratic candidate can also inspire an even greater degree of turnout from left-leaning voters to vote FOR a candidate. This is what we saw with the nazi-communist-Kenyan Candidate Obama.



That's sort of my point. Obama won because he inspired even greater turnout on the left side of the ledger.

Right or left have camps who's desired outcome is transformative (willing to risk). Sure, a lot may have meandering, if vague, ideas of the utopia that will come about, but the common thread is "not anything familiar or normal or predictable."

I think back to Obama's steering the car analogy now and think there are a whole lot of people who do very much want someone to jerk the wheel over and put us in the ditch because they want out of the car. They want a new car on some other road to some other destination and a new set of fellow passengers. Definitely no more of that driver, please.

Neo-whatever-ism is dead on arrival right now. Nationalism is highly preferable over global integration.

ETA: There are ways to do nationalism the closed, scared, insecure, way of violently lashing out and then there are ways to do nationalism as public investments predicated upon making ourselves more independently sustainable. For example, "energy independence" sells well across the spectrum. The devil is in the details, of course, but there are left and right ways of achieving it. But the very fact that any version of it scares the crap out of hydrocarbon companies is half the appeal to that kind of voter.

 

[kellyb]

Right or left have camps who's desired outcome is transformative (willing to risk). Sure, a lot may have meandering, if vague, ideas of the utopia that will come about, but the common thread is "not anything familiar or normal or predictable."

I think back to Obama's steering the car analogy now and think there are a whole lot of people who do very much want someone to jerk the wheel over and put us in the ditch because they want out of the car. They want a new car on some other road to some other destination and a new set of fellow passengers. Definitely no more of that driver, please.

Neo-whatever-ism is dead on arrival right now. Nationalism is highly preferable over global integration.

ETA: There are ways to do nationalism the closed, scared, insecure, way of violently lashing out and then there are ways to do nationalism as public investments predicated upon making ourselves more independently sustainable. For example, "energy independence" sells well across the spectrum. The devil is in the details, of course, but there are left and right ways of achieving it. But the very fact that any version of it scares the crap out of hydrocarbon companies is half the appeal to that kind of voter.

Similar to what you're saying, I read this breakdown on the "logic" of many Trump voters a while back, and I think there has to be some element of truth to it. (I recommend reading the whole thing.)

https://qz.com/737452/why-trump-voters-are-not-complete-idiots-a-photo-essay/

Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility. (He also signals in ugly ways, that he might just move them, and only them and their friends, higher with his stated policies).

As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn’t. Break the system.

The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn’t. In option language, they are in the money.

To put it in very non-geeky language: A two-tiered system has one set of people who want to keep the system, and another that doesn’t. Each one is voting for their own best interests. (Yes, there are always altruistic people. But…..)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Similar to what you're saying, I read this breakdown on the "logic" of many Trump voters a while back, and I think there has to be some element of truth to it. (I recommend reading the whole thing.)

https://qz.com/737452/why-trump-voters-are-not-complete-idiots-a-photo-essay/

Yes. People would elect gremlins to run public works right now. It will hurt "them" more than "us" to do so.

 

[Aridas]

I don't know if you've noticed, but that "someone" is anyone who runs as a Democrat.
All democrats are "far left" to Republicans.

Hillary Clinton was never seen as anything BUT a far-left Democrat to Republicans. Same with Obama.

Predictable consequence of choosing to move right, move right, move right, move right, move right...

You have to pay attention to voter enthusiasm/turnout on the democratic side, too, though.

A candidate that can further motivate a Republican to vote against the democratic candidate can also inspire an even greater degree of turnout from left-leaning voters to vote FOR a candidate. This is what we saw with the nazi-communist-Kenyan Candidate Obama.



That's sort of my point. Obama won because he inspired even greater turnout on the left side of the ledger.

And it's also quite worth remembering... left-leaning folks tend to significantly outnumber right-leaning folk. Right-leaning folk generally win because the propagandists on their side are notably more effective... and by rigging the field to their advantage.

Speaking of which... Trump allies raise money to target reporters.

That's pretty much as the headline says. They're literally targeting the media itself with underhanded means. That's not the tactics of a group that's civil, reasonable, or, dare I say it... actually conservative.


On other news, looks like Warren's adopted Inslee's climate plan and is calling for the others to do the same.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sticking with my original vision of the 2020 election. The Dems in a bit of disarray is a good thing. The laser-like focus on Hillary throughout 2014-15 was not a good thing. Yeah, the also-rans in the Democratic Party had a point... how dare they anoint her just because it's her turn?

But what hurt Hillary and the election even more was that those three seasons were just the final of 15 seasons of merciless right wing attacking. With Donnie Johnny and the Great Right Wing Noise Machine out there lashing about at any and every Democrat (and a few Republicans and Republican Spokesnetworks), they're just contributing to the war weariness. Without a shoo-in candidate, they're left to railing about everyone and at a certain point, like the boy who cried wolf, that stops working.

IMHO, the public would vote for the 1936 Montgomery Ward catalogue rather than Trump. If the Dems didn't learn that from '16, then they learned nothing. Running AGAINST someone is so much easier than building your own policies and programs and selling those. All this talk about the Dems mobilizing the opposition if they nominate someone "too left" ignores that the GOP has fully mobilized the majority opposition of liberals, moderates and light conservatives by backing Trump's onerous administration, bombastic narrative and divisiveness. The turnout in '18 was nothing! Every Dem and many Republicans I know will happily have the same discussions we're having here....
>Oh, he's an old geezer and not inspiring.
>Oh, he's an old geezer but too far left.
>Oh, she's too easy a target because Trump's already onto how to push her buttons.
>Oh, she can't mobilize the support of Group X.

"So, you're voting Trump or staying home if they nominate whomever it is you're bitching about?"

>Hell, no! The Trump nightmare has to end.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm sticking with my original vision of the 2020 election. The Dems in a bit of disarray is a good thing. The laser-like focus on Hillary throughout 2014-15 was not a good thing. Yeah, the also-rans in the Democratic Party had a point... how dare they anoint her just because it's her turn?

But what hurt Hillary and the election even more was that those three seasons were just the final of 15 seasons of merciless right wing attacking. With Donnie Johnny and the Great Right Wing Noise Machine out there lashing about at any and every Democrat (and a few Republicans and Republican Spokesnetworks), they're just contributing to the war weariness. Without a shoo-in candidate, they're left to railing about everyone and at a certain point, like the boy who cried wolf, that stops working.

IMHO, the public would vote for the 1936 Montgomery Ward catalogue rather than Trump. If the Dems didn't learn that from '16, then they learned nothing. Running AGAINST someone is so much easier than building your own policies and programs and selling those. All this talk about the Dems mobilizing the opposition if they nominate someone "too left" ignores that the GOP has fully mobilized the majority opposition of liberals, moderates and light conservatives by backing Trump's onerous administration, bombastic narrative and divisiveness. The turnout in '18 was nothing! Every Dem and many Republicans I know will happily have the same discussions we're having here....
>Oh, he's an old geezer and not inspiring.
>Oh, he's an old geezer but too far left.
>Oh, she's too easy a target because Trump's already onto how to push her buttons.
>Oh, she can't mobilize the support of Group X.

"So, you're voting Trump or staying home if they nominate whomever it is you're bitching about?"

>Hell, no! The Trump nightmare has to end.

I agree, with a slightly different take.
The Dems are about as motivated as they are going to get already, simply because getting rid of the Trumpster is so appealing. We will line up to vote for a "ham sandwich" over Trump.

But, as we have seen, simply casting 3 million more votes than the other side is no guarantee of victory, the opposition in a few States needs to be comfortable remaining unmotivated. Many will be completely comfortable sitting it out -if the candidate we run doesn't "trigger" them.

 

[Segnosaur]

Some (even most) will do everything they can to stop the 'Evil Librul Democrats', others will actually be less energized, unless they can see an actual threat (such as Sanders taking away people's private insurance.) Granted we are only talking about a minority of Republicans, but when you have elections that are decided on only a few thousand votes in a couple of swing states, then even getting a few of the less eager republicans to sit out the 2020 election can make a difference.

You have to pay attention to voter enthusiasm/turnout on the democratic side, too, though.

A candidate that can further motivate a Republican to vote against the democratic candidate can also inspire an even greater degree of turnout from left-leaning voters to vote FOR a candidate. This is what we saw with the nazi-communist-Kenyan Candidate Obama.

Yes you do have to pay attention to motivation on the democrat's side. Pick a moderate candidate and you lose the interest in some far-left voters. But pick an extreme candidate and you lose the risk of losing some moderate voters who may lean democrat, but get worried about huge tax increases and losing their private health insurance. Either way, you lose someone's interest.

The difference is how much it ends up motivating the republicans... Bernie will motivate republicans to vote for Trump a lot more than Biden would.

After all, despite significant evidence that Trump was a racist, many african American voters who had supported Obama sat out the 2016 election. Sometimes motivation matters.

That's sort of my point. Obama won because he inspired even greater turnout on the left side of the ledger.

Yes, Obama got some far left voters. But you know what? He also got a lot of moderate voters. And he did so not by pushing Bernie-style "medicare for all", or by bringing in programs that would increase taxes on the middle class. He did not want to ban the death penalty. During his first presidential election he was in favor of Civil Unions for homosexual couples, but was against federally mandated 'marriage' laws. Obama was no 'left wing extremist'.... he was most definitely a democrat, but nowhere near the far left of the party.

 

[Segnosaur]

You are right. That is probably why she got 3 million less votes. Sorry I questioned your thesis.

Yes, I get it... hillary won the popular vote.

Yet she still lost the election, and she did so against a person who was completely unsuitable for the office of president.

Now, would Hillary have won had she actually had policies closer to the political center? Honestly, I don't know... Statistically, people who are moderate have more success during general elections, but exceptions do occur, and presidential elections are relatively rare events.

 

[Cabbage]

Yes you do have to pay attention to motivation on the democrat's side. Pick a moderate candidate and you lose the interest in some far-left voters. But pick an extreme candidate and you lose the risk of losing some moderate voters who may lean democrat, but get worried about huge tax increases and losing their private health insurance. Either way, you lose someone's interest.

The difference is how much it ends up motivating the republicans... Bernie will motivate republicans to vote for Trump a lot more than Biden would.

That's not the only difference. For example, I think there's a significant number of Trump voters who are sick of the "establishment" candidates and a big deciding factor is they want to go outside the establishment. Pick an establishment candidate like Biden and they'll stick with Trump. Pick someone who's at least perceived as outside the establishment like Sanders or Warren and some of these Trump voters just might switch over.

 

[theprestige]

That's not the only difference. For example, I think there's a significant number of Trump voters who are sick of the "establishment" candidates and a big deciding factor is they want to go outside the establishment. Pick an establishment candidate like Biden and they'll stick with Trump. Pick someone who's at least perceived as outside the establishment like Sanders or Warren and some of these Trump voters just might switch over.

This is a good insight. However, I don't think Warren is perceived by many as being outside the Democrat establishment.

 

[Cabbage]

This is a good insight. However, I don't think Warren is perceived by many as being outside the Democrat establishment.

I think she's perceived by many as not being in the pockets of corporations, which is a big part of being in or out of the establishment.

 

[Segnosaur]

First of all, do you have any reason why it wouldn't be true today?
There are more independents now, for one thing, and you can look at the changes in how they lean:
https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

There's been a huge growth in the "lean democrat" type. From 10% in 2002, to 17% in 2018. (A 64% increase).

First of all, as I mentioned before, at least one of the studies provided took place within the last 5 years (long after the 'huge growth' in independents started.)

I pointed that out before, yet you seem to have ignored the point. I wonder why that is.

Secondly, I don't really see any justification about why a "lean democrat" voter would be any more or less likely to vote for an extremist candidate. To me, it would seem like an extremist candidate would be more of a turn-off for them, since if they're only 'leaning democrat' then they might be amiable to the republicans, depending on the situation.

The economics of "fiscal conservatism" has proven false since the housing crash. Stuff like that almost has to be behind this, I think:

https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/battleground-favorability
Elizabeth Warren has the highest favorable rating of any Democrat in the battleground districts -- especially among Independents.

Independents in the battleground districts have a much more favorable opinion of Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden.

Go back and read the references I provided.

The statistical advantage to moderate candidates only applies in a general election. During the primaries the same rules do not apply. (The dynamics involved in the way the vote gets split between candidates and between parties, the importance of name recognition, and the greater influence of special interest groups complicates things.)

In other words, looking at how Warren is looked at in a small number of states early in an election cycle doesn't really tell you much.

And I don't quite get your crack about 'fiscal conservatism'. Biden might be more moderate than (for example) Sanders, but he still wants increased taxes on the wealthy and more infrastructure spending. The fact that he doesn't want to break up the banks and increase middle class taxes to pay for every possible social program doesn't mean he's a 'fiscal conservative'.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think she's perceived by many as not being in the pockets of corporations, which is a big part of being in or out of the establishment.

Specifically the banks. The banks loved the Clintons and Biden. They don't like Warren.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's not the only difference. For example, I think there's a significant number of Trump voters who are sick of the "establishment" candidates and a big deciding factor is they want to go outside the establishment. Pick an establishment candidate like Biden and they'll stick with Trump. Pick someone who's at least perceived as outside the establishment like Sanders or Warren and some of these Trump voters just might switch over.

Maybe. Or maybe people have realized that picking "outside the establishment" wasn't a smart choice in the first place and wanted someone a bit more experienced and mainstream. (I don't know if that will happen, any more than you can know that a Sanders selection would bring in new voters who wanted someone "outside the establishment".)

And how exactly is Warren considered 'outside the establishment'? She's been a Democratic senator for years.

 

[kellyb]

First of all, as I mentioned before, at least one of the studies provided took place within the last 5 years (long after the 'huge growth' in independents started.)

I pointed that out before, yet you seem to have ignored the point. I wonder why that is.

Because that 2015 paper was looking at what happened between 1980 (forty years ago!) and 2010.

Nothing in there was about what was happening in 2015.

I thought you'd have noticed that.

 

[kellyb]

.
Secondly, I don't really see any justification about why a "lean democrat" voter would be any more or less likely to vote for an extremist candidate. To me, it would seem like an extremist candidate would be more of a turn-off for them,

Why do you think independents in those battleground states hate Biden so much compared to Warren?

 

[Brainster]

In the CNN Townhall on the Climate Crisis, Andrew Yang mentioned one of his "out of the box" solutions: Space Mirrors to reflect the sun's rays back:

Directly capturing carbon dioxide and planting trees are not very controversial in climate policy circles; the issue, with the former especially, is cost, not wisdom. “Space mirrors,” suffice it to say, are much more controversial, not least because they’re basically impossible to test. So too with aerosol scattering and ocean seeding (Kelsey Piper wrote a piece about one such attempt at the latter).

In fairness, Yang apparently only proposes that as a last-ditch measure, and he's apparently not anti-nuke (although no surprise he's more interested in the newer, unproven nuclear technologies), which puts him ahead of at least part of the Democratic field.