2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainster said:
Honestly, I think the only thing that could save the Democrats would be for Bernie to drop dead. Barring that, there are two realistic scenarios:

1. Bernie wins the nomination and loses badly.

2. Bernie does not win the nomination and the Bernie Bros go ballistic and the Democrats get torn apart and lose even worse.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
I love it when people refuse to see reality.
SHow me where this vast hidden pool of left wing voters in the US is.
Click to expand...

You're running out of road to figure out which of the guys in the middle lane is the great centrist unifier.

FiveThirtyEight projections show Bernie takes 30%+ in all the critical spots from last time. PA, WI, OH, IN, MI...

Given the timing and the way it will impact the narrative, a 2nd in NV and a win in SC will give Biden the look of momentum. Barring something changing (especially new polling since the debate), that may be what breaks the deadlock in the center. It will be interesting to see where Bloomberg's losses go to, that could add a new wildcard.
 
angrysoba said:
Yep, and on Telemundo, Klobuchar and Steyer failed.
Click to expand...
Watch the two interviews. Neither person knew Obrador's name. Steyer went on to actually talk about more than the president was newly elected. The interviewer tried to make a big deal out of Steyer not knowing the name. Steyer didn't let him. He went on to talk about issues.

Klobuchar, OTOH, was flustered and reports are she walked out of the interview. Telemundo kindly didn't show a clip of that.
 
dudalb said:
I love it when people refuse to see reality.
SHow me where this vast hidden pool of left wing voters in the US is.
Click to expand...

Define “vast hidden pool”.

Obviously all candidates need to get some people to vote for this candidate who didn’t vote Democrat last time or who voted Trump last time.

Depending on your measure of “vast hidden pool” then Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg etc... are relying on a “vast hidden pool”.

You keep repeating this point and yet never go into details.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Watch the two interviews. Neither person knew Obrador's name. Steyer went on to actually talk about more than the president was newly elected. The interviewer tried to make a big deal out of Steyer not knowing the name. Steyer didn't let him. He went on to talk about issues.

Klobuchar, OTOH, was flustered and reports are she walked out of the interview. Telemundo kindly didn't show a clip of that.
Click to expand...

Oh Klobuchar’s worse. No doubt. But you can’t spin Steyer’s ignorance of the Mexican president’s name as a win.
 
angrysoba said:
Oh Klobuchar’s worse. No doubt. But you can’t spin Steyer’s ignorance of the Mexican president’s name as a win.
Click to expand...

I didn't. Look at what I said:
Klobuchar didn't just forget the name (if she ever knew it) she failed foreign relations 101: at least know something about your neighbors besides the fact they have a new president.
Click to expand...
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You're running out of road to figure out which of the guys in the middle lane is the great centrist unifier.

FiveThirtyEight projections show Bernie takes 30%+ in all the critical spots from last time. PA, WI, OH, IN, MI...

Given the timing and the way it will impact the narrative, a 2nd in NV and a win in SC will give Biden the look of momentum. Barring something changing (especially new polling since the debate), that may be what breaks the deadlock in the center. It will be interesting to see where Bloomberg's losses go to, that could add a new wildcard.
Click to expand...
I am not counting Warren out yet.
Sanders seems to be claiming all the progressive support for himself- which is casting Warren as more of a centrist than she would otherwise appear if he was not so dominant on that side of the spectrum.

Since Warren seems to be everyones' second choice, I can imagine the moderates coalescing around her in the interests of achieving Party unity sooner rather than later, with the bonus that she is least likely to cause the extreme Sanders supporters to take their ball and go home.
 
Here's the source of the horse face comment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tzGt2XBGfYpVZLJ5c5VH5OlrtwpCgoXs/view

It's more of a pamphlet than a book and it's free online in full.

I didn't read the whole thing but the horse face comment was not about women, it was about someone in the royal family Bloomberg had a poor opinion of. And it's from 1990. Bloomberg calling this a joke kinda was just that.

And don't attack me, I'm still supporting Steyer. I just think this should be an evidence based discussion.
 
Last edited:
In The Onion's version of the Nevada debate highlights, one of the highlights was Bloomberg pointing out that he and Buttegieg were the only two people on the stage who were not millionaires.
 
The other candidates disliking Bloomberg could work in his favor - or not.
Bloomberg has a grace period until his name is actually on a ballot.
 
angrysoba said:
Define “vast hidden pool”.

Obviously all candidates need to get some people to vote for this candidate who didn’t vote Democrat last time or who voted Trump last time.

Depending on your measure of “vast hidden pool” then Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg etc... are relying on a “vast hidden pool”.

You keep repeating this point and yet never go into details.
Click to expand...

And he probably never will.
 
The Democrat's selection process is getting more desperate.
becd4bdaecfa72eb305165caaad46c80.jpg
 
I came across some interesting research on the voting population, and how the last elections went. The basic premise was that it surveyed people on different issues, and then set them on a two-dimensional plane, rather than just one, sort of like the political compass. Not really revolutionary, but it has lots of interesting charts :p .

This blog post uses the data to try to show why Trump beat Hillary, while Obama beat Romney, and argues Bernie would beat Trump. We can ignore the last bit as speculation, but the idea is that libertarians (social liberal, fiscal conservative) are vanishingly rare compared to populists (social conservative, fiscal liberal). Bernie was much less "woke" than Hillary, so he could have retained more populist voters.

They are adding their own interpretations, but there is a lot more data at the source. In a follow-up, they found all the 2020 Dems losing the Obama-Trump voters.

Among the other groups, Trump has the clear advantage and no Democrat stands out as uniquely positioned to succeed. In particular, most of the much-discussed Obama-Trump voters appear to be in the GOP’s camp. On average, Trump (+57) is popular with this group and Biden (-58), Sanders (-51), and Warren (-61) are not. This is not to say that the Democratic nominee cannot win over a portion of Obama-Trump voters — just that a large majority seem likely to stick with Trump in 2020.
Click to expand...

As for how 2018 changed things, Democrats did better with the populist voters. Women are more concentrated there, and out of a number of different issues, health care was proportionately very important to populist voters. The libertarian sector voted more for Republicans in 2018, but also oddly showed uncertainty with sticking with Trump for 2020. Are these people just shy Republicans, or is there an actual chance to get their votes? Going by 2018 I'd say the former.

(College educated whites are bunched in the lonely libertarian sector, which might be why there is an outsize impression of their importance.)

Again, a lot of these conclusions aren't really news, but I like charts.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
"You're trying too hard," meaning looking for things to be offended by.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. In other words, not really being offended.

And it was intended to apply to a lot of people clutching their pearls over Warren's comment.
Click to expand...

Nobody did anything of the sort. At most we were saying that it was a stupid comment to make because it was sexist-ish and stereotypical.

Seems like you're trying too hard.
 
Last edited:
BTW I know it's not true but everytime the term "Bot" is used within the context of political influence my brain WILL visualize it as a warehouse full of rows and rows of literal robots sitting there at desks typing political propaganda into Facebook and nothing will change that.

Same thing with "Troll Farm." In my mind's eye it is a literal farm growing actual Trolls who are plucked from the ground, dusted off, handed a smart phone, and sent off to share stories from Totallynotfakenews.rus about Hillary having a child sex dungeon under a pizza parlor.
 
JoeMorgue said:
BTW I know it's not true but everytime the term "Bot" is used within the context of political influence my brain WILL visualize it as a warehouse full of rows and rows of literal robots sitting there at desks typing political propaganda into Facebook and nothing will change that.

Same thing with "Troll Farm." In my mind's eye it is a literal farm growing actual Trolls who are plucked from the ground, dusted off, handed a smart phone, and sent off to share stories from Totallynotfakenews.rus about Hillary having a child sex dungeon under a pizza parlor.
Click to expand...

Thanks, now I'm picturing android Russian Bernie Bros.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom