Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[SezMe]

"Subforum".

This is the context in which our posts are made. It is the context in which they should be interpreted.

Whether this cosm is a microcosm of a larger cosm remains to be seen. Certainly those who express political opinions here seem to believe they are expressing opinions that they share with many millions of others. Whether they actually speak for those millions or not, it seems reasonable to take their commentary in the spirit in which it is offered.

Anyway, at least my stretch contains a testable prediction: We can see what voter turnout looks like in November, and we can look at opinion polls, and draw some conclusions about how many Bernie Bros stayed home rather than pull the lever for Biden.

Didn't we already see this in some of the primaries? The predicted Bernie-thusiasm never materialized at the polls?

Geeze, theprestige, such a huge contradiction in one post. First you say the comment I replied to should be taken in the context of *THIS* subforum; fine, I'm all in. Then in the remainder of your post, you switch to talking about the general voting population. I'm happy to discuss either with you - it's fun and enlightening. But you gotta chose your context and stick with it.

 

[Mumbles]

Or when they say they are, in any case. The more I think about it, the more I notice the paper-thin skin, the willingness to spew slurs, and so forth, The moire I realize that they sound like the so-called "SJW" that right-wingers claim to hate, but share the exact traits of.

And much like them, they chase off pretty much everyone who isn't them - not just Biden fans, but also Harris', Warren's, Beto's...maybe Bloomberg's I guess, dunno if he had any for long enough before he got nuked...

I've also noticed that they are't a large group, at all.

 

[Suddenly]

That one is a non-starter. The rest will most certainly be in play but I could cite issues with every other Dem candidate who, had they gotten the nomination, would be raked over the coals by the GOP. We all agree that's a given so mentioning Biden's particular soft points means nothing.

ETA: Covered better by wareyin

This is fine. The larger issue is that because of this a candidate needs to present a reason to vote for them other than "Trump's is worse" especially seeing that the party as a whole ignored that rationale when selecting Biden.

Silence about Biden having significant character issues creates the risk that the campaign will ignore this, go on with the same "Trump is bad, amirite" message that worked so well in 2016. So lets ignore that Biden is from the perspective of a lot of voters no better a person than Trump, that he does not present as significantly (if at all) more competent than Trump, and go ahead and run a campaign based on those issues.

Then blame those that were trying to warn you about this...

 

[Delvo]

because of this a candidate needs to present a reason to vote for them other than "Trump's is worse" especially seeing that the party as a whole ignored that rationale when selecting Biden...

Then blame those that were trying to warn you about this...

And carry on about how anybody who would have preferred a tougher opponent against Trump is somehow favoring Trump, when they're the ones who insisted on handing him the easiest possible target on a silver platter, just like what somebody who actually favored Trump would have done and Trump himself was explicitly hoping for.

 

[Suddenly]

Rather I will go on and on about how a man with a well-known speech impediment didn't speak perfectly. What could go wrong?"

Oratory skill is essential to presidential politics. For whatever reason, Biden is very weak at this. It isn't his fault, just as being short and slow isn't the fault of someone trying to make it in professional basketball.


It is a huge problem, and as this campaign is going to have a massive crisis as a backdrop the ability to come off as inspiring and competent is more important than usual.

"Shame on you for noticing how his stuttering issues causes him to occasionally jumble words in an awkward manner and look like a guy lost in the rhetorical weeds" is not an effective way of dealing with this.

He needs to work around it. Maybe he gets a running mate that subtly carries the rhetorical load and sharply reduces his own live speaking while increasing taped speaking to give the illusion he is still leading the way. Maybe he analyzes how his issues correlate with different times of day or fatigue level and only speak publicly when he is at his peak.

 

[Suddenly]

And carry on about how anybody who would have preferred a tougher opponent against Trump is somehow favoring Trump, when they're the ones who insisted on handing him the easiest possible target on a silver platter, just like what somebody who actually favored Trump would have done and Trump himself was explicitly hoping for.

To be fair, making this about specific alternative candidates at some point is beating a dead horse. Once the convention is over, that horse is officially dead.

The criticism is important because shoving things under the rug never helps, and those who demonize criticism as dissent always have the opposite effect they intend. Shooting the messenger is as sure a path to failure as there is.

Bernie and his supporters did the same things when they mostly just acted miffed when it was pointed out that he had a serious race issue in the primary and then blamed others when it scuttled his chances.

 

[theprestige]

Geeze, theprestige, such a huge contradiction in one post. First you say the comment I replied to should be taken in the context of *THIS* subforum; fine, I'm all in. Then in the remainder of your post, you switch to talking about the general voting population. I'm happy to discuss either with you - it's fun and enlightening. But you gotta chose your context and stick with it.

Bummer. Better luck next time.

 

[wareyin]

This is fine. The larger issue is that because of this a candidate needs to present a reason to vote for them other than "Trump's is worse" especially seeing that the party as a whole ignored that rationale when selecting Biden.

This isn't very clear to me. Are you saying that the party as a whole ignored the rationale that "Trump is worse" when selecting Biden? Or that those who were selecting Biden over all the other candidates only did so because "Trump is worse?" For the life of me I can't think of another way to parse it, but both ways of reading it say pretty clearly that people did chose Biden instead of those who you and a few others around here wanted. It's pretty clear that there was more going on than just "Trump is worse." It seems pretty overwhelmingly clear that among the Democratic choices, the response has instead been "Biden is better"...than Sanders, than Warren, than O'Rourke, than Bloomberg, etc.

Silence about Biden having significant character issues creates the risk that the campaign will ignore this, go on with the same "Trump is bad, amirite" message that worked so well in 2016. So lets ignore that Biden is from the perspective of a lot of voters no better a person than Trump, that he does not present as significantly (if at all) more competent than Trump, and go ahead and run a campaign based on those issues.

In 2016 the election was completely different. You had decades of animosity and smear tactics against one candidate, while the other was a relative unknown. I personally know people who don't like him now, but voted for Trump last time because "he's a successful businessman" or "why not" or even the refrain heard on this board a lot "he can't do much harm, the adults in the room will keep him reined in." And honestly, the calls from the angry Bernie Bros and others on the far left about how corrupt Clinton was hurt her chances as well. Biden doesn't have those decades of hate, Trump has pissed off a lot of people, but that still doesn't mean short sighted lefties screaming about how ebil he is won't have some effect on those who vote.

Then blame those that were trying to warn you about this...

We heard you guy way back in the primary, when that was the time for "warning us" about how bad he was. Obviously, the voters largely didn't agree with you. Now, now that it is done and it is either Biden or Trump, now is not the time to keep on talking about how bad Biden is. Unless you are intent on weakening him so Trump wins, that is.

 

[wareyin]

And carry on about how anybody who would have preferred a tougher opponent against Trump is somehow favoring Trump, when they're the ones who insisted on handing him the easiest possible target on a silver platter, just like what somebody who actually favored Trump would have done and Trump himself was explicitly hoping for.

Sanders has never been a tougher candidate for Trump. Trump has openly cheered to run against Sanders in both the 2016 and the 2020 campaigns. Trump never chooses the harder path.

That said, every time you say Trump is better than Biden, you are favoring Trump. That's...the definition of favoring!

 

[wareyin]

Oratory skill is essential to presidential politics. For whatever reason, Biden is very weak at this. It isn't his fault, just as being short and slow isn't the fault of someone trying to make it in professional basketball.

That's some very interesting pretzel logic you have going on there! Oratory skill is essential to getting where Biden has reached, but Biden doesn't have it, so despite his getting there he clearly will not be able to get there just like a short and fat guy won't make the NBA. Newsflash: Biden is already there. He's the Democratic nominee for President. If this were the NBA, he'd be one of the 2 finalists for MVP, while you think he can't get in the league.

It is a huge problem, and as this campaign is going to have a massive crisis as a backdrop the ability to come off as inspiring and competent is more important than usual.

"Shame on you for noticing how his stuttering issues causes him to occasionally jumble words in an awkward manner and look like a guy lost in the rhetorical weeds" is not an effective way of dealing with this.

Interesting. And your advice on how to handle this is something along the lines of "Hey everybody look how bad my candidate is, he's just horrible! Hey, hey, you guys in the back, did you hear me? My candidate is the absolute worst! Here's a minor speech impediment that we've known about for decades and didn't stop him from being VP and now the Dem candidate, but this is essential and he doesn't have it! <grabs bullhorn and jumps up and down waving arms> HEY HEY DON'T VOTE FOR MY GUY!!!!"

I hope you'll forgive me if I think that's short-sighted, helped to cost us the last election, and has no chance of a good outcome this time.

He needs to work around it. Maybe he gets a running mate that subtly carries the rhetorical load and sharply reduces his own live speaking while increasing taped speaking to give the illusion he is still leading the way. Maybe he analyzes how his issues correlate with different times of day or fatigue level and only speak publicly when he is at his peak.

Say, that was a really subtle way of saying "maybe someone else can still take over for him."

To be fair, making this about specific alternative candidates at some point is beating a dead horse. Once the convention is over, that horse is officially dead.

Unless we can tell everybody how horrible the guy everyone picked actually is loud enough so we can still get someone else in there! <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

The criticism is important because shoving things under the rug never helps, and those who demonize criticism as dissent always have the opposite effect they intend. Shooting the messenger is as sure a path to failure as there is.

You must be joking. Shooting your candidate in the back is a far more sure path to failure.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We heard you guy way back in the primary, when that was the time for "warning us" about how bad he was. Obviously, the voters largely didn't agree with you. Now, now that it is done and it is either Biden or Trump, now is not the time to keep on talking about how bad Biden is. Unless you are intent on weakening him so Trump wins, that is.

The press and the party treated him with kid gloves during the primary. Even Bernie was reluctant to go on the attack. That's been one my major gripes with his campaign, his reluctance to go negative when it came to Joe's atrocious record.

For example, Bernie should have crucified him over the NAFTA decision and Iraq at every opportunity, but he didn't. Do you think Trump will share the same respectful restraint?

Of course, this gentle treatment will not carry over to the general. In 2016, the party pretended like Hillary's mountain of baggage didn't matter, only to be shocked when it all collapsed in on her during the general. Perhaps we will see the same thing again with Joe.

I suspect you are correct about how well this might work now for President Trump vs candidate Trump. I hope that his poor track record over the last 4 years will make it harder for him to dish out empty promises. I can't understand the reasoning of the people who believed him initially, so I have no idea if they are disillusioned or not.

 

[wareyin]

The press and the party treated him with kid gloves during the primary. Even Bernie was reluctant to go on the attack. That's been one my major gripes with his campaign, his reluctance to go negative when it came to Joe's atrocious record.

Sanders was going negative against the entire Democratic party.

For example, Bernie should have crucified him over the NAFTA decision and Iraq at every opportunity, but he didn't. Do you think Trump will share the same respectful restraint?

Let me get this straight: you think the guy who crossed out NAFTA and wrote USMCA with no other changes will go after Biden over NAFTA? The guy who has already bombed Iran and Iraq and damn near got us into a war over killing an Iranian general is going to go after Biden for voting for a war? You really don't get the whole "mote in one eye, plank in the other" parable meaning, do you?

Of course, this gentle treatment will not carry over to the general. In 2016, the party pretended like Hillary's mountain of baggage didn't matter, only to be shocked when it all collapsed in on her during the general. Perhaps we will see the same thing again with Joe.

I'll admit, I was surprised at how much the far left attacked Clinton in the general. I certainly hope they aren't stupid enough to do the same thing again. But I'm not seeing many signs yet that people are learning that helping Trump gets you Trump.

I suspect you are correct about how well this might work now for President Trump vs candidate Trump. I hope that his poor track record over the last 4 years will make it harder for him to dish out empty promises. I can't understand the reasoning of the people who believed him initially, so I have no idea if they are disillusioned or not.

I don't share the reasoning of the folks who believed Trump last time around either. I do know that a lot of the ones I speak with (who are considering not voting for him again...sadly too many who did last time will do so again) would be a lot more comfortable voting for a left candidate like Biden than a far left candidate like Sanders. Here in the South, his embrace of Democratic Socialism is all they see, and they ain't a gonna vote for no soshulist!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sanders was going negative against the entire Democratic party.

If you think the primary was negative, you're in for one hell of a wake up in the general.

Let me get this straight: you think the guy who crossed out NAFTA and wrote USMCA with no other changes will go after Biden over NAFTA? The guy who has already bombed Iran and Iraq and damn near got us into a war over killing an Iranian general is going to go after Biden for voting for a war? You really don't get the whole "mote in one eye, plank in the other" parable meaning, do you?

Of course he will, and the facts won't matter. Just like in 2016. Have you not figured this out yet? Trump is a hypocrite, his voters don't care. The party could be forgiven in 2016, it really was quite the unusual circumstance. There is no excuse in 2020.

I don't share the reasoning of the folks who believed Trump last time around either. I do know that a lot of the ones I speak with (who are considering not voting for him again...sadly too many who did last time will do so again) would be a lot more comfortable voting for a left candidate like Biden than a far left candidate like Sanders. Here in the South, his embrace of Democratic Socialism is all they see, and they ain't a gonna vote for no soshulist!

The people who knee-jerk against demsoc are also the same people that spite vote just to stick a finger into the eyes of coastal elites. Hope Joe has figured out a way to defuse the populist rage in the dying post-industrial swing states. Trump didn't promise much, but he has delivered on being a vindictive monster.

If these people don't see any hope for the future, spite is all they have left. There is a lot of animus out there, and Joe needs to have an answer for it. I'm not holding my breath.

It is my firm belief that Joe and the party are not ready to meet this challenge, hence my derision of both. Don't confuse this as a hope that Trump is victorious.

 

[wareyin]

Of course he will, and the facts won't matter. Just like in 2016. Have you not figured this out yet? Trump is a hypocrite, his voters don't care. The party could be forgiven in 2016, it really was quite the unusual circumstance. There is no excuse in 2020.

Yes, 2016 really was unusual. Trump could run on all his promises (healthcare, the wall, etc) and people didn't know for sure he wouldn't do them. Plus, the bitter BernieBros on the left were busy telling everyone that Clinton was absolute garbage. Now, people are aware that not only did Trump not have a plan for better healthcare (from day 1!), he's been fighting to take away their healthcare even during a pandemic in which people are losing their jobs and healthcare combined. But the BernieBros are still sitting over there telling everyone that Biden is absolute garbage. Yes, there is no excuse for those who fell for Trump the first time to do so again. But there is also no excuse for those who attacked Clinton from the left to do the same thing to Biden.

The people who knee-jerk against demsoc are also the same people that spite vote just to stick a finger into the eyes of coastal elites. Hope Joe has figured out a way to defuse the populist rage in the dying post-industrial swing states. Trump didn't promise much, but he has delivered on being a vindictive monster.

What do you mean he didn't promise much? He promised better healthcare, coal jobs out the wazoo, bringing back manufacturing, lowering taxes for everyone, 4% annual growth, eliminate the federal debt, balance the federal budget, not touch SS or Medicare, and on and on and on!

If these people don't see any hope for the future, spite is all they have left. There is a lot of animus out there, and Joe needs to have an answer for it. I'm not holding my breath.

It is my firm belief that Joe and the party are not ready to meet this challenge, hence my derision of both. Don't confuse this as a hope that Trump is victorious.

Right now, with the US plunging into a recession on top of 16 thousand dead and more than that in the hospital because Trump screwed up badly, I hope more people are thinking about how to get this country back on its feet rather than spitefully trying to make things worse.

 

[Segnosaur]

And carry on about how anybody who would have preferred a tougher opponent against Trump is somehow favoring Trump, when they're the ones who insisted on handing him the easiest possible target on a silver platter, just like what somebody who actually favored Trump would have done and Trump himself was explicitly hoping for.

I really don't think you have a clue about the possible pitfalls that a Sanders candidacy would run into were he the Democratic nominee.

His comments about Castro and education in Cuba alone would cost him any chance at winning Florida. Then there is his self-labeling as a socialist... kiss a bunch of moderate independents good bye. And he is older (and in possibly worse health) than Biden... maybe even Trump. (Look what happened when Hillary had to take time off in the 2016 election... the right wing media made it look like she was on death's door.)

I am under no illusions that Biden is a great candidate... He's old, he makes verbal gaffs, etc. And that will probably cost him some vots in the election. I am not going around denying it (as opposed to BernieBros, who seem to look at Bernie and if someone points out a potential problem, BernieBros deny the problem and suggest it is the fault of the voter who "doesn't understand".)

 

[SezMe]

Oratory skill is essential to presidential politics. For whatever reason, Biden is very weak at this. It isn't his fault, just as being short and slow isn't the fault of someone trying to make it in professional basketball.


It is a huge problem, and as this campaign is going to have a massive crisis as a backdrop the ability to come off as inspiring and competent is more important than usual.

"Shame on you for noticing how his stuttering issues causes him to occasionally jumble words in an awkward manner and look like a guy lost in the rhetorical weeds" is not an effective way of dealing with this.

He needs to work around it. Maybe he gets a running mate that subtly carries the rhetorical load and sharply reduces his own live speaking while increasing taped speaking to give the illusion he is still leading the way. Maybe he analyzes how his issues correlate with different times of day or fatigue level and only speak publicly when he is at his peak.

Given his "huge" problem, it's a miracle he got elected in 1973 and has been reelected in every senatorial contest ever since. Right?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Given his "huge" problem, it's a miracle he got elected in 1973 and has been reelected in every senatorial contest ever since. Right?

History cuts both ways: so far Biden's lost every presidential race he's entered.

 

[Elagabalus]

I really don't think you have a clue about the possible pitfalls that a Sanders candidacy would run into were he the Democratic nominee.

His comments about Castro and education in Cuba alone would cost him any chance at winning Florida. Then there is his self-labeling as a socialist... kiss a bunch of moderate independents good bye. And he is older (and in possibly worse health) than Biden... maybe even Trump...

And with Bernie's Brooklyn brogue he would have called Trump a ********** and just kept right on talking about the beautiful city on the hill yadda, yadda, yadda. And he has charisma! So there's that.

And seriously, this is like the 1000th time you've said this. Don't worry, we get it!

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you just sit there and let us grieve about our beloved Bernie without accusing anyone of not "having a clue" (which is unhelpful in the extreme). I promise I'll "do the right thing" come November.

 

[Sideroxylon]

History cuts both ways: so far Biden's lost every presidential race he's entered.

Only had to pull put once when caught telling tale tales and plagiarising though.

 

[wareyin]

And with Bernie's Brooklyn brogue he would have called Trump a ********** and just kept right on talking about the beautiful city on the hill yadda, yadda, yadda. And he has charisma! So there's that.

And seriously, this is like the 1000th time you've said this. Don't worry, we get it!

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you just sit there and let us grieve about our beloved Bernie without accusing anyone of not "having a clue" (which is unhelpful in the extreme). I promise I'll "do the right thing" come November.

I'm glad you get it. I have my doubts that the person Segnosaur was responding to does. There are also others in this thread that would rather bern it all down because to the perfect a good person is worse than a bad one.