2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[LSSBB]

That would only be true if Bernie Sanders were running against a Democratic nomination as well as Trump.

However, if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

That said, I am not arguing that Sanders would definitely win. His age and his long track record will certainly be exploited by his opponents.

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

 

[Distracted1]

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

I agree, and with a similar amount of objective evidence.
I thought we (The Democrsts) were doomed by having two unelectable candidates leading the pack- but I voted Clinton in the primaries because I thought she would have a better chance than Sanders.

I remember (with rue) that I was thrilled when the Republicans selected Trump. I thought " what luck! The Republicans have selected the only candidate who could possibly lose to Clinton! ". Clearly, my enthusiasm was misplaced

 

[angrysoba]

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

I’m not arguing that Sanders would have necessarily won. I am just saying that it would not require a “vast lost tribe” of voters who were only waiting for the right candidate. Generally speaking, the Democrats and Republicans win when they mobilize their bases in the right areas. The Republicans did that because Republicans would vote for almost anyone on their team.

 

[Brainster]

This is the guy we should all cheer for. It'll make the Republicans' heads explode, en masse, like that scene at the end of the first Kingsman movie. The left-leaning press doesn't mention his grampa and the right-leaning never fails to, I'm sure. Gramps was one of the featured terrorists at Munich in '72.

Will not be old enough in 2020.

 

[Brainster]

I’m not arguing that Sanders would have necessarily won. I am just saying that it would not require a “vast lost tribe” of voters who were only waiting for the right candidate. Generally speaking, the Democrats and Republicans win when they mobilize their bases in the right areas. The Republicans did that because Republicans would vote for almost anyone on their team.

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

 

[The_Animus]

Actually we're a 20, 10, 20, 50 nation, because half the population doesn't vote. So you either have to swing more of that 10% independant, or convince some of that 50% to actually vote.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Actually we're a 20, 10, 20, 50 nation, because half the population doesn't vote. So you either have to swing more of that 10% independant, or convince some of that 50% to actually vote.

What do the two 20s and the ten represent? You start with an incorrect base figure. 58% of eligible voters voted in 2016, not 50%

Current self identification of those 58% would be 28% GOP, 27% Dem, 43% Independent*. Taken as percentages of actual voters that would give us:

GOP 16.2%
Dems 15.6%
Ind 24.5%

So more like 16- 16 - 25 - 40, and a candidate or party needs to convince that stay-at-home 42% to get off their asses.

*That's from Gallup's monthly poll on self-identified party affiliation. The GOP ain't doing so great but the Dems are in deep ****. They are at a historical low of 27%. My hunch is that Not Trump works with Independents but not with party devotees. Dem voters expect more than "Hey! Don't We All Hate Trump? (and the crowd starts chanting **** Him Up!, **** Him Up!). The Democratic Party has no leadership or leader at the moment. The wounded ducks in the Clinton house, the New York Jewboy socialist, and that colored fella and his wife,..... none of them are running in 2020 (or '18). None of them has stepped up to head the Party, either. A front-runner better come out of the '18 elections or the Dems are going to have trouble beating Trump or Pence.

 

[Solitaire]

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for
a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for
a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by
the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately
liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either
side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you
lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from
the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to
the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never
going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens
or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties.

Actually, it's more of a 47.5% to 5.0% to 47.5% nation.

What Everyone Gets Wrong About Independent Voters by Joshua Holland


So rather than thinking that close to 40 percent of the electorate are “gettable”
independents that the parties must win over, it’s better to focus on those political
scientists call “floating voters”—people who have cast votes for both parties in
the past. That group has shrunk dramatically as the parties have moved further
apart, and now only represents around 5 percent of the electorate.

The irony is that as the parties sharpen their ability to reach their own voters,
they have less incentive to find common ground, which tends to piss off their
strongest partisans. For better or worse, that’s likely to continue to drive more
polarization and turn off more voters—it’s a vicious or virtual cycle, depending
on your perspective. And the fact that a lot of people call themselves
independents is probably the least interesting thing about this dynamic.

I'm worried that we may see another 2004 political vacuum polarization.

 

[Venom]

I see a compulsion to keep giving establishment Democrats the benefit of the doubt when it comes to attracting voters. That despite their horrid track record the past decade.

Democrats are their own worst enemy. No clear vision atm.

 

[angrysoba]

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

That arithmetic works neatly if the election were simply a popular vote with the highest number of votes winning. But Trump is hardly anybody’s idea of a “moderate” whereas Clinton is a completely mainstream Democrat. He won because of the electoral college system which interferes with the arithmetic you are using.

 

[phiwum]

Need I remind you of Trump's age?

If I'm not mistaken, Sanders is even five years or so older. At these ages, an additional five years kinda matter.

 

[phiwum]

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

I think that's a usually pretty reasonable way to suss things, but clearly, that's not what happened in 2016. Trump was far from a middle or even reasonable candidate. He wasn't quite the traditional view of conservative values, but surely no where near the middle.

 

[Brainster]

I think that's a usually pretty reasonable way to suss things, but clearly, that's not what happened in 2016. Trump was far from a middle or even reasonable candidate. He wasn't quite the traditional view of conservative values, but surely no where near the middle.

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

 

[tyr_13]

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

I don't think the election of Trump is a unicorn, but it has been a black swan.

There is no way to go back to the older, more rational situation. You have to deal with the new situation and try to turn that into something more rational while incorporating the updated information.

To keep the animal metaphor going, you can't un-**** that goat. 90% of Republicans approve of Trump and his presidency still. They're goat ******* now, so if you want any sort of rational situation to come about you have to deal with the fact that we know that now, rather than suspect that. You have to deal with around a third of the population willing to believe obvious lies (or behave as if they do), attacks on the very underlying principles of our society, and abandon their own 'principles', if they can be convinced it will get them 'power'. They will believe and do whatever they need to, when they need to, and then the opposite when it's demanded of them.

It's not enough that you get them to stop ******* goats, you have to get them to stop being willing to **** goats. Or unite against them so their goat ******* can't do as much harm.

That went strange fast.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think the election of Trump is a unicorn, but it has been a black swan.

Maybe a Discworld Unicorn....

 

[This is The End]

I see a compulsion to keep giving establishment Democrats the benefit of the doubt when it comes to attracting voters. That despite their horrid track record the past decade.

What are you talking about?? In the "past decade" they won 2 of the 3 presidential elections. And they won all 3 as far as the total number of "voters" is concerned.

In fact, in the past seven presidential elections the Democrats only lost the popular vote ONCE.

The Democrats "problem" is that a huge chunk of the voting block are piece of **** racist, sexist, anti-science, creator cult members. Those people need to be removed from the gene pool, not catered to. So I say good for the Democrats in not doing so.

 

[angrysoba]

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

Exactly! And this is what I was saying about Bernie Sanders:

if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

 

[Belz...]

So more like 16- 16 - 25 - 40

Dude, that adds up to 97%!

 

[Belz...]

What are you talking about?? In the "past decade" they won 2 of the 3 presidential elections. And they won all 3 as far as the total number of "voters" is concerned.

In fact, in the past seven presidential elections the Democrats only lost the popular vote ONCE.

Don't you mean twice?

ETA: Oops, see Mumbles below.

 

[Mumbles]

Don't you mean twice?

Nope. Clinton in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008, Obama in 2012, Clinton in 2016. BUsh in 2004 is the only time in the past 7 elections - and he was riding off post-9/11 unity even then.