2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Beelzebuddy]

You don't think Biden would defeat Trump?

No. No one wants him. I don't want him. You don't want him. You're saying there's a lot of other people who'd stay home rather than vote against him, I'm saying there's a lot of people who'd stay home rather than vote for him. That was a problem Clinton had as well. Her electoral strategery of "well she's not Trump at least" did not defeat Trump. Biden's will not either.

 

[Distracted1]

You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.

I see Biden having the same problem she did. When it came right down to it, not enough people actually wanted her as president, so they stayed home because they assumed all those other people who did want her would turn up. Just like you don't want Biden, but you're afraid people will vote against whoever else otherwise.

Don't worry about what candidate other people will want. Support the person you'd most like to see in office, and trust others to do the same.

As I said. I can dig up the posts from back then if necessary (maybe), but I was calling her unelectable well before the Republican nominee had been selected.
I felt the Democratic Party was underestimating the vitriol towards her in the Midwest.

 

[Distracted1]

No. No one wants him. I don't want him. You don't want him. You're saying there's a lot of other people who'd stay home rather than vote against him, I'm saying there's a lot of people who'd stay home rather than vote for him. That was a problem Clinton had as well. Her electoral strategery of "well she's not Trump at least" did not defeat Trump. Biden's will not either.

Who do you think would "stay home rather than vote for him" when the alternative is a second Trump term?

 

[kellyb]

Who do you think would "stay home rather than vote for him" when the alternative is a second Trump term?

Same type of people as these folks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clear-nonvoters-handed-trump-the-presidency/

As we noted shortly after the election, about 30 percent of Americans were eligible to vote but decided not to, a higher percentage than the portion of the country who voted for either Trump or his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

 

[Distracted1]

Same type of people as these folks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clear-nonvoters-handed-trump-the-presidency/

I think the pool of eligible non-voters is worthy of consideration- but not very much consideration. Historically, better than 58% turnout of voting age Americans does not seem to have been achieved since 1968.
The dynamism required to motivate the non voters is just as likely to cut both ways IMO



Voting Age Population (VAP)[clarification needed][8] Turnout[clarification needed][8] % Turnout of VAP[8][9]
1789
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828 57.6%
1832 55.4%
1836 57.8%
1840 80.2%
1844 78.9%
1848 72.7%
1852 69.6%
1856 78.9%
1860 81.2%
1864 73.8%
1868 78.1%
1872 71.3%
1876 81.8%
1880 79.4%
1884 77.5%
1888 79.3%
1892 74.7%
1896 79.3%
1900 73.2%
1904 65.2%
1908 65.4%
1912 58.8%
1916 61.6%
1920 49.2%
1924 48.9%
1928 56.9%
1932 75,768,000 39,817,000 52.6%
1936 80,174,000 45,647,000 56.9%
1940 84,728,000 49,815,000 58.8%
1944 85,654,000 48,026,000 56.1%
1948 95,573,000 48,834,000 51.1%
1952 99,929,000 61,552,000 61.6%
1956 104,515,000 62,027,000 59.3%
1960 109,672,000 68,836,000 62.8%
1964 114,090,000 70,098,000 61.4%
1968 120,285,000 73,027,000 60.7%
1972 140,777,000 77,625,000 55.1%
1976 152,308,000 81,603,000 53.6%
1980 163,945,000 86,497,000 52.8%
1984 173,995,000 92,655,000 53.3%
1988 181,956,000 91,587,000 50.3%
1992 189,493,000 104,600,000 55.2%
1996 196,789,000 96,390,000 49.0%
2000 209,787,000 105,594,000 50.3%
2004 219,553,000 122,349,000 55.7%
2008 229,945,000 131,407,000 58.2%
2012 235,248,000 129,235,000 54.9%
2016 250,056,000 (estimated)[10]

Sorry for the poor quality of the cut/paste.
It is from this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think it's dangerous to assume that getting non-voters out for "your side" is going to be significantly easier then getting "other side" voters out for your side.

The Dems have played the "Oh all those non-voters... yeah they'd totally be on our side if they voted" card a lot and I think are usually right, especially in the face of voter suppression, but they aren't right as much as they think they are.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's dangerous to assume that getting non-voters out for "your side" is going to be significantly easier then getting "other side" voters out for your side.

The Dems have played the "Oh all those non-voters... yeah they'd totally be on our side if they voted" card a lot and I think are usually right, especially in the face of voter suppression, but they aren't right as much as they think they are.

If there's one thing I've learned from online discussion forums, it's that the guy who says the lurkers agree with him is always comically wrong.

 

[Delvo]

I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".

 

[Dr. Keith]

And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".

It was just a clip, so I'm not sure what her total comments were, but she did seem to stumble around saying something along the lines of 'maybe this person is better on that issue or another person is better in this issue', as if she knew he just wasn't very good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.

It says she doesn't have enthusiasm for her own husband.

 

[dudalb]

Tulsi still running lame banner ads on websites I visit. She might as stop throwing her money away....

 

[dudalb]

And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".

Just keep up this "We Don"t Need No Stinking Moderates and Centrist" crap and you will hand Trump a second term on a silver platter.
And the real myth is the "Lost Tribe Myth" in which you seem to firmly believe.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Just keep up this "We Don"t Need No Stinking Moderates and Centrist" crap and you will hand Trump a second term on a silver platter.

And the real myth is the "Lost Tribe Myth" in which you seem to firmly believe.

Isn't it just as reckless for moderates and centrists to turn their noses up and sit out, though?

The "purity test" argument goes both ways.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

As I said. I can dig up the posts from back then if necessary (maybe), but I was calling her unelectable well before the Republican nominee had been selected.
I felt the Democratic Party was underestimating the vitriol towards her in the Midwest.

And I'd have agreed with you, then and now. I see Biden as similarly terrible for similar reasons. I don't see any reason his run would turn out any differently.

 

[Distracted1]

And I'd have agreed with you, then and now. I see Biden as similarly terrible for similar reasons. I don't see any reason his run would turn out any differently.

I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.

I think a nice, boring, establishment, "business as usual" type candidate is what they long for after the Trump experience. And a candidate like that will give us back MI and PA- and probably OH too, without costing us any blue States.

A candidate pushing UHC, free tuition, and reparations will put them in the same dilemma they found themselves in in 2016- with the same likely result.

I thought the Dems had that with Biden, unfortunately it is seeming lately that his age is going to overtake him before he can get to the finish line.

 

[Stacyhs]

It would be interesting to know if a race in 2020 between Trump and Clinton (if she hadn't run in 2016) would have a different outcome. After 4 years of Trump insanity, I wonder if more Democrats would have gotten their asses to the voting booth and less would be willing to gamble on Trump. We'll never know of course.

 

[kellyb]

It would be interesting to know if a race in 2020 between Trump and Clinton (if she hadn't run in 2016) would have a different outcome. After 4 years of Trump insanity, I wonder if more Democrats would have gotten their asses to the voting booth and less would be willing to gamble on Trump. We'll never know of course.

It would probably depend, in part, at least, on who was beat by Trump last time and what the prevailing narrative was about why they lost.

 

[kellyb]

I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.

I'm sure some of them do, but I'm also sure a lot of them don't.

There are several members of this forum who voted for Trump, or voted 3rd party, or just didn't vote for POTUS, but I haven't seen any of them say they regret it or that they're planning to vote differently this time around because of how bad Trump is.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.

I think a nice, boring, establishment, "business as usual" type candidate is what they long for after the Trump experience. And a candidate like that will give us back MI and PA- and probably OH too, without costing us any blue States.

A candidate pushing UHC, free tuition, and reparations will put them in the same dilemma they found themselves in in 2016- with the same likely result.

I thought the Dems had that with Biden, unfortunately it is seeming lately that his age is going to overtake him before he can get to the finish line.

There I can disagree with you. I think that relying solely on anti-Trump sentiment turning out all the base voters to usher in the most inoffensive, milquetoast candidate they can anoint would be a stupid gamble. It's already failed once with Clinton, and Biden would be no different. If your answer to regretful independent voters is "we're going to take your vote for granted and run a geriatric white guy of our own whom no one wants, what else are you gonna do, vote for Trump, ya saps," you're going to lose.

Look. You've had half a dozen posts by now to correct me and say that you genuinely want Biden, qua Biden, in office. You haven't done so. You, the person here who is arguing for Biden, will be holding your nose to vote for him. That is a bad idea. It will continue to be a bad idea, because candidates whom everyone has to hold their nose to vote for don't get elected.

 

[Venom]

Isn't it just as reckless for moderates and centrists to turn their noses up and sit out, though?

The "purity test" argument goes both ways.

Doesn't count when progressives are involved.