2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I keep asking people who already agree with me if they agree with me and they all seem to agree. I don't see what the issue is."
 
Belz... said:
Again, I said NOTHING about Sanders' strategy. I was speaking in response to dudalb's comments about Sanders supporters. Ironically, the one making strawmen is you.
Click to expand...

The original post that started this whole tedious back and forth was this:

dudalb said:
Sorry, but every argument for Bernie winning in November I have heard is based on the idea that there is a vast pool of hidden left wing voters out there who will come out for the right candidate.
Click to expand...

This is a strawman. Increased voter turnout is only a small aspect of Bernie's strategy, and his high polling indicates mainstream voters are open to supporting Bernie. Bernie clearly intends to woo normal Democrats, swing voters, and perhaps some conservative voters to win this thing. Dem-soc types are among some of his most vocal and ardent supporters, but are only a small part of his support base.

Perhaps I misunderstood your replies to this original post, but it seemed like to me you were seconding this deliberately uncharitable interpretation.
 
Sanders may be a democratic socialist, but at this point we are only going to "socialize" healthcare, if even that. Bernie would work with congress.

The voters know very well we are not going to get socialism in 4 years and the main part of the economy will run as usual. Bernie would have a hard time cutting military spending, as an example.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, and you'll notice that it has nothing to do with communism and campaign strategies.



At this point I think it's clear that you have no idea what a strawman is. I suggest you look it up.
Click to expand...

In the interest of not getting into a mutli-page slap fight over this pointless debate, I am abandoning this particular line of conversation.

My position remains that anyone stating that Bernie plans to win by mobilizing a lost tribe of leftists voters is being deliberately obtuse about the reality of Bernie's support or is grossly under-informed.
 
Polling for NH remains very favorable towards Sanders. He may win the primary with a double digit lead over the second place finisher.

The more interesting story may be who among the weaker candidates decides to remain in the race. Another Biden flop may send his supporters scattering, and Warren and Yang may decide to leave if they haven't gained any ground.
 
varwoche said:
I have found over the years that it's almost impossible to under-estimate the knowledge/awareness/sensibility of US voters.
Click to expand...

Anecdote alert, but pretty funny.

An Iowa caucus voter wanted to retract her vote for Pete because she didn't know he was gay.

It really boggles the mind how little people are informed about their political choices.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Anecdote alert, but pretty funny.

An Iowa caucus voter wanted to retract her vote for Pete because she didn't know he was gay.

It really boggles the mind how little people are informed about their political choices.
Click to expand...

It's not like he's made a secret of it.

It still amazes me how important some people believe it is to control what other people do in the bedroom.
 
I can't imagine Biden dropping out before SC no matter what happens in NH. But his polls there are dropping since he got flounced in Iowa. He probably needs a strong showing in SC or it's over for him.

I don't really see any big moves in the polls coming until more candidates drop out. Not sure when that will be.
 
We have to leave Super Tuesday with a clear front runner at worst, hopefully a fully backed candidate.

The longer our base is split the worse.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We have to leave Super Tuesday with a clear front runner at worst, hopefully a fully backed candidate.

The longer our base is split the worse.
Click to expand...

Not sure if I agree with that exact timeline, but I think it would be very divisive if there wasn't a clear winner by the end of the primary. A brokered convention is guaranteed to leave people salty no matter who is selected.
 
Segnosaur said:
As has been pointed out... we are concerned that, even though Sanders is polling OK both nationally and in many states, he has not been subject to any sort of sustained attack as (for example) Biden has.. Both the republicans and the other democrats are treating him with kid gloves to a certain extent.

(And yes, Trump has said a couple of bad things about Sanders, like calling him 'communist', but so far his attacks have been limited.)

And negative campaign ads have worked in the past: the Willy Horton ads were wildly successful in the 1988 presidental election.

That's why some people are nervous.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Sanders won't still win. But its an unknown factor that could really blow up on the Democrats. And the typical response by Sanders supporters is just to handwave it away.
Click to expand...

I guess I look at it a little differently. Sanders has now been in two presidential campaigns where he has been attacked from both the left and the right. The term socialist has been applied to him consistently throughout.

It's certainly true that if he becomes the nominee he will face more attacks. Negative attacks have been shown to be effective in a general sense and Trump will continue to face attacks as well.

The reason I don't give this line of argument much weight is for two reasons. First it can be applied to any candidate. Regardless of who wins they will face increased negative attacks. Second, how much those will affect the vote is pure speculation.

National and state polling, which can fluctuate, is still a better standard of evidence regarding electability. There are also other measures you can take into consideration such as donations, volunteers, and rally turnouts. Unlike polling, these measures do not give a direct indication of actual votes, but they do give a measure of enthusiasm for a candidate. If you're really excited about a candidate, it is more likely you'll take the time to go vote.

I'm not sure how much the reason you provided applies to dudalb. From what I've seen he thinks Sanders supporters believe there is some lost tribe of voters that will appear. His posts imply he hasn't actually looked at the polling and even when it or other evidence is supplied for him he still doesn't seem to actually look at it based on posts he makes afterward. His position seems less based on factual evidence and more on his preference for centrist candidates and bias against progressive candidates, most notably Sanders.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Not sure if I agree with that exact timeline, but I think it would be very divisive if there wasn't a clear winner by the end of the primary. A brokered convention is guaranteed to leave people salty no matter who is selected.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, it's just on a functional level it's pretty much the last thing we need right now.
 
The_Animus said:
I guess I look at it a little differently. Sanders has now been in two presidential campaigns where he has been attacked from both the left and the right. The term socialist has been applied to him consistently throughout.

It's certainly true that if he becomes the nominee he will face more attacks. Negative attacks have been shown to be effective in a general sense and Trump will continue to face attacks as well.

The reason I don't give this line of argument much weight is for two reasons. First it can be applied to any candidate. Regardless of who wins they will face increased negative attacks. Second, how much those will affect the vote is pure speculation.

National and state polling, which can fluctuate, is still a better standard of evidence regarding electability. There are also other measures you can take into consideration such as donations, volunteers, and rally turnouts. Unlike polling, these measures do not give a direct indication of actual votes, but they do give a measure of enthusiasm for a candidate. If you're really excited about a candidate, it is more likely you'll take the time to go vote.

I'm not sure how much the reason you provided applies to dudalb. From what I've seen he thinks Sanders supporters believe there is some lost tribe of voters that will appear. His posts imply he hasn't actually looked at the polling and even when it or other evidence is supplied for him he still doesn't seem to actually look at it based on posts he makes afterward. His position seems less based on factual evidence and more on his preference for centrist candidates and bias against progressive candidates, most notably Sanders.
Click to expand...
Sanders has in the past pretty much called himself a socialist, at least a democratic socialist, which is splitting hairs at that point
 
JoeMorgue said:
We have to leave Super Tuesday with a clear front runner at worst, hopefully a fully backed candidate.

The longer our base is split the worse.
Click to expand...

There are advantages in not having the candidate chosen this early. For one, the opposition is having to divide their attacks between multiple targets. All that effort exerted to attack Biden through his son, and it may have been totally wasted if Biden doesn't end up the candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom