2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[JoeMorgue]

Perhaps. Maybe we simply need to grow up and recognize that the change will require a bit of hypocrisy.

Impossible. Hypocrisy (which at this point has been watered down to mean "You at any point did anything in one set of circumstances and at any point after that ever did anything different in any other set of circumstances") is the only sin recognized anymore.

Clinton got a BJ, Trump gets create a functional dictatorship. The environmental movement had moments of "The Sky is Falling" over-exaggeration in the past, we have to let the Earth burn to a cinder. One side says something a little overly-dramatic, the other side gets to outright deny reality.

 

[Distracted1]

Impossible. Hypocrisy (which at this point has been watered down to mean "You at any point did anything in one set of circumstances and at any point after that ever did anything different in any other set of circumstances") is the only sin recognized anymore.

Clinton got a BJ, Trump gets create a functional dictatorship. The environmental movement had moments of "The Sky is Falling" over-exaggeration in the past, we have to let the Earth burn to a cinder. One side says something a little overly-dramatic, the other side gets to outright deny reality.

Hence the "grow up" proscription from my post.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Keep in mind that the idea that a centrist has a better chance at winning isn't just because "This is what the pundits say". There have been studies done that show that moderate candidates do better than extremists at elections. (This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, and even a 'far left' candidate line Sanders does have a chance at defeating Trump... it would just mean Sanders would be bucking statistical trends.)

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty

Now, I assume a lot of people are thinking "Trump was a right-wing extremist, and he won in 2016". But the thing is, that is actually wrong.

Now, I am not saying Trump was a good candidate. He is a liar, a con-man, and a racist. But, consider what he was campaigning on: He claimed he was against Iraq and Libyan military actions. (It was a lie, but that's still what he claimed). He said he would protect gay rights (even holding up an LGBTQ rainbow flag at a public event). He said because he was rich he knew tax loopholes and would be able to close them. (Which sounds a little like "get the rich to pay more".) He was going to bring in 'better health care' (even though he didn't actually have a plan for it). And he wasn't going to touch social security. Again, much of it was lies, but to a gullible person, he sounded pretty moderate.

Compare him to other republican politicians at the time, folks like: Paul "privatize social securty" Ryan, or Rick "homosexuality is like beastiality" Santorum, or Ted "I'm voting against hurricane aid" Cruz. I would put Trump to the 'left' of the Republican party (according to his 2016 policies).

Trump didn't win because he was a centrist, he won because he presented himself as an anti-establishment outsider. A populist. Running against Hillary, who epitomizes establishment politics, worked tremendously to his advantage in a climate of extreme political disillusionment.

Sanders also has a populist message, and more importantly, real credibility on these matters. Compared to Trump's many failed promises, Bernie may appear very appealing.

Except of course some of his policies seem to be rejected by that same working class.

Its all well and could to claim how those "working classes" will benefit under Sanders, but if those same people are rejecting your message right off the bat, you've certainly dug yourself into a hole early on.

This remains to be seen. Bernie doesn't have to win over dedicated MAGA CHUDs. Trump was many things to many people. Some are quite happy with his presidency and are probably firmly committed to Trump in 2020. Many are not and are looking for the nearest off-ramp. Bernie's strategy seems to be a combination of wooing working class swing voters in strategic states and having better turnout among normally demoralized voters. I have no idea if this will work, and anyone claiming to know with any certainty is either a fool or a liar.

You're right, he doesn't have any of those scandals.

Instead, he has the "I stole from my neighbors" scandal. And the "I'll ship radioactive waste through minority communities" scandal (or, as the republicans will probably label it, "environmental racism".) And the "women enjoy rape don't they?" scandal (which, admittedly does have a reasonable explanation, but it will still be fodder for the republicans). And the "I went to a 'death-to-america rally' and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" scandal. And the "I honey-mooned in Moscow" scandal. And the "I called MYSELF a socialist" scandal.

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

I have a hard time imaging these mattering at all. These all sound pretty lame. I really have a hard time imaging Republicans being effective smearing Bernie with anti-environment or personal corruption barbs when Trump is their candidate.

Scandals only matter if they resonate with voters. Who knows what the future might bring. I will only point out that every attack so far on Bernie has failed spectacularly, and often backfired on those attacking.

 

[Brainster]

Nate Silver says that when it comes to the Iowa Caucuses, expect the unexpected:

So even though Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are doing a bit better than other Democrats in Iowa polls, everyone would need a bit of luck to win the caucuses. Per our model, as of 8 p.m. Wednesday, Sanders had a 37 percent chance of winning the most votes1 — which is the best in the field. But it also means there’s a 63 percent chance he won’t win. Our model forecasts Biden to win 35 percent of the time, meanwhile, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 16 percent, Elizabeth Warren at 9 percent and Amy Klobuchar at 3 percent. Even Klobuchar isn’t that much of a long shot. Her chances are about the same as — let’s go with a football analogy since the Super Bowl is this weekend — Brett Favre’s chance of throwing an interception on any given pass attempt.

I don't think you can discount the advantage Bernie and his team has, having already gone through the Iowa caucuses before (and nearly pulling off the upset against Hillary).

 

[dudalb]

I think a lot of people are really, really, overestimating the number of "Progressive" voters out there.
I think there is a echo chamber at work here. If most of your friends are Progressives,and you get most of your news from Progressive sources, you are going to think most people are Progressives at heart.

This is best illustrated by a reporter covering the 1972 elections and was shocked when Nixon won, saying "But nobody I knew voted for him".

I have not seen any evidence that is convincing that somebody as far to the left as Bernie has a good a chance of winning in November then somebody perceived as more in the mainstream.
I also am concerned by the "Any Criticism of Bernie is an unfair attack" attitude a few people here have. No different then what the Trump supporters say,really.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think a lot of people are really, really, overestimating the number of "Progressive" voters out there.
I think there is a echo chamber at work here. If most of your friends are Progressives,and you get most of your news from Progressive sources, you are going to think most people are Progressives at heart.

This is best illustrated by a reporter covering the 1972 elections and was shocked when Nixon won, saying "But nobody I knew voted for him".

There may be enough to win the primary. That's what this thread is about.

 

[dudalb]

That the big time Republicans in this forum all are pulling for Bernie should tell you something....

 

[dudalb]

There may be enough to win the primary. That's what this thread is about.

And I am talking about the general election...which a lot of the discussion here is about.
Nice dodge, though.
I hope, if Bernie wins, all of you will be happy in your ideological purity when Trump wins reelection.

 

[Belz...]

That the big time Republicans in this forum all are pulling for Bernie should tell you something....

It means they think Bernie would lose in the general?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And I am talking about the general election...which a lot of the discussion here is about.
Nice dodge, though.
I hope, if Bernie wins, all of you will be happy in your ideological purity when Trump wins reelection.

People who aren't progressives would vote for Bernie anyway.

Political forecasting is dodgy, but if you put any stock in it, general election polling for Bernie vs Trump is very promising. Bernie routinely shows as being as strong against Trump as Biden, the so-called "electable" candidate.

you assume that Bernie can't win. That's fine, all we really have in these things is vague feeling and bad polling. But if you put any stock in political polling at all, then Bernie is not a long shot candidate.

Come off you high horse and accept your Bernie pessimism is no more rooted in any firm data than my optimism.

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that the idea that a centrist has a better chance at winning isn't just because "This is what the pundits say". There have been studies done that show that moderate candidates do better than extremists at elections.

Trump didn't win because he was a centrist, he won because he presented himself as an anti-establishment outsider. A populist.

Yes, its true, being a 'populist' was a significant part of Trump's election strategy. (So was racism to be honest.) But, at the end of the day he still had to offer the electorate something. And what he offered was a moderate position on many issues.

If he came out and said "I'm a populist, vote for me and I'll get America involved in more wars, privatize your social security, and send all gay people to work in the salt mines" I doubt he would have been successful.

I also think its a mistake to claim Trump's success was merely due to him being "an outsider". Voters are not some monolithic block... some may have voted for him because he was an outsider, some may have done so as a reflex "always vote republican", some may have been attracted specifically to his racism. And some may have liked his policies.

Sanders also has a populist message, and more importantly, real credibility on these matters. Compared to Trump's many failed promises, Bernie may appear very appealing.

Yes, he does have more credibility than Trump, and if people acted with logic and reason, Sanders would be a slam-dunk winner over Trump. But they don't. People are often naive and gullible, they sometimes listen to the wrong people and don't verify facts.

Except of course some of his policies seem to be rejected by that same working class.

Its all well and could to claim how those "working classes" will benefit under Sanders, but if those same people are rejecting your message right off the bat, you've certainly dug yourself into a hole early on.

This remains to be seen. Bernie doesn't have to win over dedicated MAGA CHUDs.

No, Sanders doesn't have to convert Trumpers to BernieBros. But he does have to make sure he 1) keeps the support of as many Democrats as possible, many of whom are not 'working class', but are suburbanites with white collar careers. 2) minimizes the number of Trump supporters who go to the polls.

In one poll, Sander's plan to eliminate all private health insurance was supported by just 30% of the population. Trump's current disapproval rating is around ~53%. That means roughly 20% of the population says "I don't like Trump, but I also don't like Sander's health care plan". That's a lot of voters to potentially piss off. If the Democrats start pushing that plan, they will lose votes among those who are happy with their current private insurance, AND they will probably end up increasing republican turnout, all in the name of 'stopping socialized medicine'.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics/poll-warren-sanders-health-insurance/index.html

Instead, he has the "I stole from my neighbors" scandal. And the "I'll ship radioactive waste through minority communities" scandal...And the "women enjoy rape don't they?" scandal ... And the "I went to a 'death-to-america rally' and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" scandal. And the "I honey-mooned in Moscow" scandal. And the "I called MYSELF a socialist" scandal.

I have a hard time imaging these mattering at all. These all sound pretty lame.

And there were probably some Clinton backers who thought "I can't imagine Clinton's emails mattering at all... it happened so long ago and there's never been a confirmed security breach".

How did that work out for them?

I really have a hard time imaging Republicans being effective smearing Bernie with anti-environment

The republicans don't have to convince a Democrat to vote for Trump based on environmental record.

They just need to convince the Democrat to not vote at all because "all politicians are the same".

Scandals only matter if they resonate with voters. Who knows what the future might bring. I will only point out that every attack so far on Bernie has failed spectacularly, and often backfired on those attacking.

As I pointed out before, Sanders hasn't really BEEN attacked. While the Republicans regularly condemned Clinton during the 2016 primaries, they were usually silent on Sanders. (And Clinton herself didn't get involved in anything low-level on Sanders to any significant degree.)

The 2020 primaries appear to be similar... The debates are mostly about policy, and so far Trump often appears to be more supportive of Sanders than attacking him. (Suggesting for example that Sanders is being 'robbed' of the nomination.)

 

[Segnosaur]

People who aren't progressives would vote for Bernie anyway.

Political forecasting is dodgy, but if you put any stock in it, general election polling for Bernie vs Trump is very promising. Bernie routinely shows as being as strong against Trump as Biden, the so-called "electable" candidate.

you assume that Bernie can't win. That's fine, all we really have in these things is vague feeling and bad polling. But if you put any stock in political polling at all, then Bernie is not a long shot candidate.

Come off you high horse and accept your Bernie pessimism is no more rooted in any firm data than my optimism.

Data has been provided that provides the basis for Bernie pessimism.

We have:

- Academic studies (i.e. not just 'pundits saying stuff') that suggests moderate candidates have more electoral success than extremists

- The unpopularity of at least one of Sander's major policies

- A journalist who has seen the opposition research against Sanders, AND republican actions that tend to indicate they prefer him to be the leader

On the other hand, what do we have in favor of Sanders?

- Some current polling data. Yeah, that's something. But success this early in the election cycle doesn't always translate to success later

- Lots of hand waving, and stuff taken out of context

 

[theprestige]

I think a lot of people are really, really, overestimating the number of "Progressive" voters out there.

I think Elizabeth Warren might be one of those people:

“I’m gonna have a secretary of education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf,” Warren said. “And only if this person believes that our secretary of education nominee is someone who is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be secretary of education.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/30/warren-transgender-secretary-education/

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Data has been provided that provides the basis for Bernie pessimism.

We have:

- Academic studies (i.e. not just 'pundits saying stuff') that suggests moderate candidates have more electoral success than extremists

- The unpopularity of at least one of Sander's major policies

- A journalist who has seen the opposition research against Sanders, AND republican actions that tend to indicate they prefer him to be the leader

On the other hand, what do we have in favor of Sanders?

- Some current polling data. Yeah, that's something. But success this early in the election cycle doesn't always translate to success later

- Lots of hand waving, and stuff taken out of context

All of these point could have been said about Trump during his primary run. He was an extremist and not a moderate, he had unpopular policies, he had many strong oppo research stories, etc.

Past data is only predictive assuming conditions remain similar.

Perhaps Trump is an anomaly. A one-off deviation from the normal political trends that will be forgotten as other moderate, academically consistent candidates resume the office.

Perhaps the political ground in this country has shifted. Nothing lasts forever. Perhaps the age of center-right democrats is over. history contains many examples of political paradigm shifts.

It's hard to say. People can't even agree about the root causes of election results in the near past, much less the future.

 

[Segnosaur]

All of these point could have been said about Trump during his primary run. He was an extremist and not a moderate, he had unpopular policies, he had many strong oppo research stories, etc.

Except of course as I pointed out before, he wasn't an extremist (at least as far as his policies were concerned).

Instead, he was a republican who claimed he was going to protect gay rights, was not going to get into any more unpopular wars, wasn't going to touch social security, and was going to help close tax loopholes to make the rich pay more.

Sounds positively enlightened, given that the republican party contains politicians like Paul "privatize social security" Ryan and Rick "homosexuality=beastiality" Santorum.

Granted, most of it was lies, and Trump is also a con-artist and racist, but if you accepted his promises at face value many were close to the political center, and many would have been very popular.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Except of course as I pointed out before, he wasn't an extremist (at least as far as his policies were concerned).

Instead, he was a republican who claimed he was going to protect gay rights, was not going to get into any more unpopular wars, wasn't going to touch social security, and was going to help close tax loopholes to make the rich pay more.

Sounds positively enlightened, given that the republican party contains politicians like Paul "privatize social security" Ryan and Rick "homosexuality=beastiality" Santorum.

Granted, most of it was lies, and Trump is also a con-artist and racist, but if you accepted his promises at face value many were close to the political center, and many would have been very popular.

Trump started his campaign by announcing he was going to build a border wall.

Cherry picking his policies doesn't change that he ran as an extremist and as a foil to the mainstream establishment.

He's practically a model right-wing populist. He promised increased prosperity for Americans and demonized foreigners, immigrants, and Muslims. He hasn't really delivered on his promises of prosperity, but he sure has delivered on inflicting misery on immigrants and other undesired brown people.

So yeah, his lack of desire to cut social spending makes him less conservative in some ways. His open nativism certainly makes him an extremist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also I've been informed multiple times that Trump only won the general election because he cheated / Russian interference.

Bernie will not have that advantage.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think a lot of people are really, really, overestimating the number of "Progressive" voters out there.
I think there is a echo chamber at work here. If most of your friends are Progressives,and you get most of your news from Progressive sources, you are going to think most people are Progressives at heart.

This is best illustrated by a reporter covering the 1972 elections and was shocked when Nixon won, saying "But nobody I knew voted for him".

I have not seen any evidence that is convincing that somebody as far to the left as Bernie has a good a chance of winning in November then somebody perceived as more in the mainstream.
I also am concerned by the "Any Criticism of Bernie is an unfair attack" attitude a few people here have. No different then what the Trump supporters say,really.

Lots of hand wring and zero engagement with policy.

 

[Venom]

Also I've been informed multiple times that Trump only won the general election because he cheated / Russian interference.

Bernie will not have that advantage.

??

Trump won the electoral college by 200,000 votes in a few states.

There's no guarantee it was super significant nor does it look like Russia is planning to interfere if it's Bernie. In fact, depending on the ultimate motivations of the 2016 attack, it appears since Sanders is relatively non-interventionist Putin won't be too enthusiastic about attacking him the way he did Clinton.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's no guarantee it was super significant nor does it look like Russia is planning to interfere if it's Bernie. In fact, depending on the ultimate motivations of the 2016 attack, it appears since Sanders is relatively non-interventionist Putin won't be too enthusiastic about attacking him the way he did Clinton.

"Okay but if we run Bernie then Russia won't interfere in the 2020 election" is... a very bold claim.

So wait the new narrative is the Russians were out to get Hillary not either help Trump or just generally muck up our election and take advantage of the confusion?