2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[nausicaa]

Quote

While Trump had the advantage of arguing in 2016 that low unemployment numbers were fake and a rising stock market was a “bubble,” he must now argue that those same numbers are now both real and reflect true improvement for the majority of Americans (when a lot of Americans, particularly working-class Americans, don’t own stocks)...

Quoting @BernRul's quote from the Vox article. I wonder though, what percentage of Americans who don't own stocks actually vote? (I don't know the actual numbers, but wouldn't be surprised if they are outnumbered by those who do.)

From the numbers I can find, 51% of Americans contribute to an IRA. 32% in a 401k (with I'm sure some overlap between the two). People are pretty happy when their accounts are booming. (Which they currently are, even if it has nothing to do with Trump. Which is a whole other economics rant for another time.)

I do think Sanders could woo back some disenchanted Rust Belt voters. However I also think those areas are the most susceptible to Republican oppo research and attacks. And Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona still matter a lot. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by nausicaa

[Rachel333]

13 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

(Though he did diligently campaign for HRC after she secured the nom in 2016. So maybe he will surprise me.)

After dragging things out long after he had no chance of winning, and suggesting that super-delegates should make him the nominee even though Hillary had the majority. He has completely switched positions on what should happen in broken convention since then!

I do think that he and his campaign hurt Hillary a lot in the general by vilifying her as much as they did and taking so long to concede. I absolutely buy that if he had handled things better Trump wouldn't be president right now. That doesn't make it solely his fault by any means, but as close as it ended up being, I think there are a number of factors that could have swayed the election. If Anthony Weiner hadn't been such a creep, or if Hillary's campaign had made one fewer mistake, or if (and this is the biggest one) Comey had chosen to act differently, etc.

This has all just made me think a lot about what we lost in not making Hillary president. Even when I thought I didn't like her, I never doubted her competency.

[BernRul]

17 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I would argue that the fact that there's a slew of them is why they can't unite the moderate wing--they are dividing too many votes between them. 

And Sanders still isn't polling very well among POC. They likely won't turn out in the general election for him; something that really hurt HRC as well. 

 

Agreed, there's no clear safe bet here. A year ago, I thought it would be Joe Biden but he has proven, uh, not exactly up to the cognitive and intellectual challenge let's say? 

And yes, Obama and HRC were called socialists. But Sanders actually is a socialist. Who has praised the Soviet Union on video. And never apologized for it. Like @Rachel333 said, I worry about how much he is going to mobilize Republicans to come out and vote for Trump who would have otherwise stayed home.

If people want someone who speaks for economic change, then I do think Warren is the safer bet. She doesn't have the decades of baggage, doesn't have serious health issues, and she's pretty damn good on her feet, especially with sound bites that go viral. (And I'm saying this as someone who disagrees with Warren as well as Sanders.)

I do have this question for Bernie supporters: If Bloomberg wins the nom, as some say he inevitably will because he can just outspend everybody and is focusing on later states, how will you feel if Bernie Sanders runs third party and splits the vote? I worry he is basically holding the Dems hostage at this point, and his recent tweet only confirms those concerns. 

(Though he did diligently campaign for HRC after she secured the nom in 2016. So maybe he will surprise me.)

True about the moderates, but I'd argue that the fact that none of them can unite that wing is a problem for their ability in the general. If you cannot win over the different factions of your own party, how will you win the general electorate? At least Sanders can both unite most of the liberal wing (not claiming all) and diverse groups like Latinos and union workers. 

Sanders IS a socialist, yes, and that is his "negative" just like I listed the negatives of the others. However, I don't think it makes him dead in the water, because the GOP attacks everyone as a socialist or other extreme regardless. To the diehard supporters, they see anything to the left as the most extreme. It could alienate more moderate Repubs, but again, that's his negative, like all candidates have. 

Bloomberg will not inevitably win. That debate made him look like a joke, and he can't get support beyond people who believe his ads, and perhaps some Never Berniers. 538 has Bernie at 46% chance of winning more than half the delegates, compared to Bloomberg's 4%. They have Bernie at a 69% chance of winning a plurality, compared to Bloomberg's 11%.

My husband has DACA, so our lives literally depend on who wins in 2020. That being said, I don't blame liberals for refusing to stomach Bloomberg.  If a contested convention happens, than the Democrats deserve to lose for nominating someone like Bloomberg over the person with a plurality--and statistics show,there's currently a 7 in 10 chance that will be Bernie.

Bernie won't run as a third party. He didn't in 2016, and he endorsed Hillary Clinton. Something like over 80% of former Bernie supporters voted for Clinton. He might not be a saint, but the man is not a monster either. 

[nausicaa]

Just now, Rachel333 said:

After dragging things out long after he had no chance of winning, and suggesting that super-delegates should make him the nominee even though Hillary had the majority. He has completely switched positions on what should happen in broken convention since then!

I was trying to be nice for once! ?

But yes, agreed on all points. I know I've said it before, but I also think his running at age 80 with such serious health issues, rather than throwing his full weight behind Warren, reveals his selfishness and egotism. 

[Rachel333]

There's an enormous difference between being called a socialist because that's how Republicans try to smear all Democrat candidates, and actually calling yourself a socialist and even praising dictatorships.

To paraphrase a crude comparison I've seen made, if you hear a bunch of other people calling some guy a goatfucker that will probably taint your opinion of him, but if he proudly calls himself a goatfucker then you will really want nothing to do with him.

 

5 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I was trying to be nice for once! ?

But yes, agreed on all points. I know I've said it before, but I also think his running at age 80 with such serious health issues, rather than throwing his full weight behind Warren, reveals his selfishness and egotism. 

Absolutely. I'm really just annoyed at all the old egotistical men right now who think it's a good idea to run for president when they're almost 80. If they make it through 8 years (and that's a big "if," which I don't like -- I would like my candidate to live through two terms) they would be in their late 80s at the end of their presidency! 

I'm annoyed at Tom Steyer too, for his vanity project that is only hurting the real candidates.

And I'm annoyed at Sanders again for hiding that he's being helped by the Russians. He absolutely could have said something without revealing the classified parts, but he let people vote without knowing some really important information.

It's par for the course for him, though. They hid his heart attack at first too, letting his supporters believe it wasn't a heart attack. (I remember his supporters attacking anyone who said it was a heart attack, then finding out a few days later that it really was -- I'd be unhappy with the campaign if I were them.) And since he's not releasing his health records like he said he would, I wonder what else they're hiding.

[nausicaa]

Just now, BernRul said:

Bloomberg will not inevitably win. That debate made him look like a joke, and he can't get support beyond people who believe his ads, and perhaps some Never Berniers. 538 has Bernie at 46% chance of winning more than half the delegates, compared to Bloomberg's 4%. They have Bernie at a 69% chance of winning a plurality, compared to Bloomberg's 11%.

Unfortunately, more people are exposed to those ads (which I have to admit are very well done) than to the debates. People vote for superficial and emotional reasons on both sides of the aisle. Even the more political types who vote in primaries. 

And 538 gave HRC a 71% chance of winning in 2016, so its methodology isn't faultless. 

Bloomberg is investing heavily in the delegate heavy Super Tuesday states, while mostly ignoring the early primary states. We haven't seen the effects of his ads yet. 

And Bloomberg can drag this thing out as long as he wants since he basically has unlimited funds. While he is ramping up spending, Warren, Biden, and Buttigieg are running out of money, so Bernie is likely his only real competition. 

I didn't think Bloomberg stood much of a chance after Nevada either, but my very smart, political adviser friend (who isn't even a Dem, doesn't like Bloomberg, and is watching this whole thing pretty disinterestedly) stated this morning he is sure Bloomberg will win. I was really taken aback and started looking into it. I'm not as certain as him, but I'm really curious to see the results on March 3rd. 

19 minutes ago, BernRul said:

He might not be a saint, but the man is not a monster either. 

I don't think he's a monster. 

I'm confident he wouldn't run third-party against any other nominee, and would even campaign for them. Except Bloomberg. And I do worry about the latter situation happening as described above.

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

I'm not too concerned if Sanders dies in office (not that I wish death on the guy), but I do worry how disastrous it could be if he died right before the general election and his VP stepped in as the pick. 

This is an actual concern. He is old and in poor health. He could die right before the election or have such health complications that he has to drop out. That happening would be a disaster.

He should have stopped running for president after 2016. 

 

[Smee]

WHY is voter turnout so low among young people? Are they more likely to face barriers to voting (inability to take time off jobs they’ve only been in a short time or struggle to pay rent from? Difficulty getting to polling places without a car?) or simply less politically involved in general? Do young people in the US attend climate protests or share political opinions on their social media?

It’s interesting to me that this is cited so often as a major issue in getting Democrats to win. I live in a country with compulsory voting, so all our young people turn up and number a box regardless of how passionate they are, and they have to be actively disinterested to put in a blank piece of paper (or write the letters spelling “fuck off” in the 7 available boxes as I saw when counting votes last election). But we still got the right-wing, climate change denying, welfare cutting, private school funding party. Either young people don’t make up enough of the population (entirely possible, given increased life expectancy) or they’re not as unanimously liberal as people assume.

[Dandruff]

Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to the details of what the candidates are offering...but which of them, if any, are detailing what they'd do to undo the damage that Trump has caused?  I believe a lot of smart, prolonged effort will be needed to get the US back on track.  Until one of them does (hopefully), how much of a candidate's idealistic agenda would have a chance of coming to fruition, especially in the near future?  Do they think that Republican senators and ultra-conservative judges appointed by Trump are suddenly going to switch loyalties and climb onboard?  This, in part, is why I want a Moderate candidate.  I see Sanders, in a way, as the same kind of trouble as Trump - trying to quickly turn this country into something it essentially isn't, without the buy-in of most citizens and other politicians.  I'm all for positive change but think it needs to be carefully explored, measured, and prioritized to have a chance of being positively integrated into this society.  The candidate who can make constructive change happen, in the context of erasing some of the Trump "effect" and creating viable, broadly-appealing approaches to health care, education, etc. is the one who should be running.  Someone who can perform...and be believed.

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, Smee said:

WHY is voter turnout so low among young people? Are they more likely to face barriers to voting (inability to take time off jobs they’ve only been in a short time or struggle to pay rent from? Difficulty getting to polling places without a car?) or simply less politically involved in general? Do young people in the US attend climate protests or share political opinions on their social media?

It's both barriers as well as lack of education and some apathy.

Yes, young people in the U.S. attend climate protests and share political opinions on social media. But that doesn't mean they will vote. 

I have a reporter friend who covered the Women's March in D.C. He was trying to get quotes and opened by asking young women-- spending their Saturday in the freezing cold holding anti-Trump signs-- if they voted for HRC. More than once a group would say "Oh we didn't vote." Not because they had some specific issue with HRC or were somehow prohibited from voting, they just couldn't bother. A lot of these women came from Virginia (a swing state).

I have friends who post anti-Trump  and climate change stuff on Facebook and they have no idea when primaries are or that there are mid-term elections. 

Lack of civics education is a big element. They don't know how to vote or what they are doing. Low voter turnout is a bigger problem for non college-educated people under 30. 

Other factors are that many don't pay taxes yet (or only nominal taxes) and aren't as invested on that front. Those in college tend to move a lot, which makes decisions of where to register a bit more challenging and also doesn't encourage them to invest into their current location via local elections. Those not in college often work jobs with hours that make it more difficult to vote. 

And it's cyclical--because young people don't vote, politicians aren't going to waste their limited campaign dollars targeting them or addressing their most relevant issues. 

Here's an interesting NPR article on it:

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/645223716/on-the-sidelines-of-democracy-exploring-why-so-many-americans-dont-vote

[SassyPants]

Why on God’s green Earth would anyone who is anti-Trump vote for Bloomberg? Bloomberg is nothing but an older, shorter, richer version of Trump. Please folks think looooooooong and hard before they pick Trump lite as the candidate!

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, AmericanRose said:

I would rather have Sanders' VP pick than Pence, that's for sure! They do say evil never dies, but with Trump's current health and his diet...

I would love to send him a steady diet of Big Macs, French fries, andKentucky fried Chicken, and introduce him to the joys of deep fried butter...

[Mama Mia]

On 2/19/2020 at 5:32 AM, Rachel333 said:

Oh boy. When I get home and have more time I will be happy to compile a bunch more examples of Bernie supporters being toxic (it's very, very easy to find examples), but to start with, how about the incidents that Elizabeth Warren was talking about? The leaders of the culinary union were deluged with threatening messages from Sanders supporters, all because they had the audacity to say that they didn't like Sanders's plan to eliminate the type of healthcare the union currently has. It was so bad that Sanders himself finally had to say something about it.

Bloomberg's recent ad also featured a bunch of examples. I still hate Bloomberg but I'm glad he's addressing it.

 

Bernie supporters have been downright abusive to anyone who has even mild criticism of Sanders. I've seen several female journalists say that a lot of people avoid publicly criticizing Sanders because if they do they will get a ton of nasty comments, including very misogynistic comments if the target is a woman.

It's real. I've seen it, and I'm tired of Bernie supporters claiming it doesn't happen when people talk about what they've experienced online. Of course every campaign is going to have some awful people among its supporters, but no other Democratic candidate has the type of problem the Sanders campaign has.

 

I've seen even the most anti-Sanders Democrats repeatedly saying that they will hold their nose and vote for Sanders if it comes down to it. Talking about the problems with Bernie and his plans is what is supposed to happen in the primary, and doesn't mean people won't vote for him in the general.

 

A poll from January showed that Sanders supporters were much less likely than other candidates' supporters to say they would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was. Only Yang's supporters were less likely, which makes sense because he attracted a fair amount of Republicans. (And none of Buttigieg and Warren supporters said no to the question!)

  Reveal hidden contents

I saw the John Oliver segment. I like John Oliver, but it wasn't very good. He said he was ignoring the cost and politics of MFA, when that's hugely important. Every Democratic nominee wants universal healthcare, but they have realistic plans to transition from our current system. The fact is that with our current political system MFA just isn't going to get passed right away. Even AOC admitted that the other day. I'm so sick of and disgusted with the Sanders supporters who say that anyone who doesn't support Sanders's plan (which isn't even much of a plan--he certainly doesn't have a realistic way to get it implemented) wants poor people to die. I've seen that argument over and over and it is so disingenuous. I think someone with a realistic plan to improve our current system, even if we don't go straight to MFA, will help poor people much more than Sanders will if he refuses to compromise.

 

On another note, Sanders has often been pretty misleading about his plan. For example, not a single country he listed in a recent tweet actually has the kind of plan he wants (and if he's talking about universal healthcare alone, every other Democrat has a plan for that as well). Someone went through them here:

  

  Reveal hidden contents

I also think Bernie's supporters have done a lot of damage in demonizing all the other candidates and claiming that they're basically Republicans. I saw someone the other day claim that Biden, Warren, and Biden were "far right," which is laughable. They all have very progressive platforms that are to the left of any previous Democratic candidate. The thing is, now we do have a candidate, Bloomberg, who really is terrible and was an actual Republican extremely recently, but so many Sanders supporters have been using that attack against everyone else in the race.

I will absolutely vote for him if he's the nominee and I don't think he's evil, but I do think Bernie would be a terrible candidate and an ineffective president. I was a big Sanders supporter in 2016, but I realized I fell for a cult of personality, and the more I've learned about Bernie in the years since the less I want him as the nominee.

Just need to say as a strong Bernie supporter since 2016 I have been insulted horrendously on-line by various folks - some Trumpians, but mostly Clinton supporters in the last election, and various other Dem candidate supporters in this one, Mostly on twitter , but also Facebook and commenting on articles. Just off the top of my head:

”wetback” , “You/ your family should be deported” “you’re too dumb to know he’s racist” “swim back to where you came from” “ you Mexicans are too stupid to know who will help you” - countless other racist ones- stopped using my last name eventually to avoid those.

”dumb c*nt”, “internalized misogyny” “ dried up old hag” “ need to up your estrogen” “f*ing wh*re” “need to get laid” , actual dick pics ....and on and on and on and on.

In addition to the racist and sexist - dozens of just general insults. 

Everyone who is politically active online gets harassed sometimes- because there are a**holes everywhere.Some Bernie supporters can be awful, absolutely, but to represent it as just his supporters is ridiculous. 

Also FYI, some of those Bloomberg tweets showing the horrible Bernie folks were edited, and some were proven to be from Trump or Warren supporters. 

 

[Rachel333]

I saw some people say they were easily able to trace the tweets in the Bloomberg ad to known twitter personalities who are Bernie supporters. I saw one that was edited to remove some of the tweet, but the part they showed was still an exact quote. 

I've never said that bad behavior doesn't exist among other candidates' supporters, and I don't think that the majority of Bernie supporters act that way, but I will absolutely maintain that Bernie's campaign is unique in the breadth of the issue. Maybe it's not as obvious if you're one of his supporters, but from outside it's clear that there's a difference. Try criticizing Bernie on twitter vs criticizing the other candidates.

Up until last fall I still liked Bernie and considered voting for him, but even when I liked him the behavior of his supporters was still incredibly off-putting and I just didn't see that extent of awful behavior from other candidates' supporters. To some extent it works, and it worries me that in the future other campaigns will think it's a good idea to cultivate that kind of online culture.

Although, I do think it might be more that those types of people, the ones who think it's okay to wish violence on people who don't have the right beliefs (this is an issue I've been noticing more and more on the extreme left even outside of electoral politics) are drawn to Bernie rather than the campaign creating them. I genuinely don't think Bernie made people act that way, I just don't think he has done as much as he can to stop it.

(It's not just online, either. This happened at a Bernie event a few weeks ago:)

Quote

 

Another hopped on stage and grabbed a microphone for a call and return with the crowd.

“When I say ‘Fuck,’ you say ‘Biden!’”

“Fuck,” he yelled. “Biden,” the crowd roared back.

“When I say ‘Fuck,’ you say ‘Warren!’”

“Fuck,” he yelled. “Warren,” the audience answered back.

And so it went with Buttigieg, Steyer, and even Tulsi Gabbard, the poor thing. So much for party unity.

 

 

[Rachel333]

Great, I just saw that Bernie went on 60 Minutes tonight and partially defended Fidel Castro, giving the Republicans some great clips and pretty much ensuring that he'll lose Florida. How are we supposed to win without Florida? Not only that, but he was unable to give any details about how he would actually get his plans paid for. This is the Republicans' dream opponent.

[fraurosena]

17 hours ago, front hugs > duggs said:

@fraurosena I’m really impressed by your knowledge and interest in our political system. Can I ask what got you so involved in learning about it? I can’t recall where you’re from (or if you’ve mentioned it!) but for some reason I am thinking you are from Scandinavia, am I way off with that?

Why, thank you for the compliment, @front hugs > duggs!

I’m Dutch, so not quite Scandinavian, but you’re not too far off.

I wasn’t actually interested in politics at all, let alone American politics. But then Trump became one of the contenders for the nomination and his reaction to the tiny hands comments made the news over here. I got curious about him, as I didn’t know who he was, other than the vague knowledge that he was the host of the American version of The Apprentice. Then I found these politics threads and started reading them to find out more. I began watching debates, following news sites, and got hooked.

Having had ‘America from the 1930s to now’ as the main history subject for my school exams (in the early eighties) I was somewhat familiar with the American political system, albeit rather rusty. My current knowledge stems from following the slowmotion trainwreck the Trump administration is. I can’t seem to look away...

[Rachel333]

4 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Although, I do think it might be more that those types of people, the ones who think it's okay to wish violence on people who don't have the right beliefs (this is an issue I've been noticing more and more on the extreme left even outside of electoral politics) are drawn to Bernie rather than the campaign creating them.

For example, this is the kind of discourse I'm talking about. I had to laugh at that guy's reaction, though; he has a good point!

Spoiler

(Disclaimer: I really do not think most Bernie supporters are like this. The majority are nice, reasonable people who don't make habit of sending threats to union leaders, and if I find out someone supports Bernie I'll assume they're one of the reasonable ones unless proven otherwise.)

[Smee]

This is one creative way of raising funds! https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1231773503227035648.html 

[nausicaa]

7 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Great, I just saw that Bernie went on 60 Minutes tonight and partially defended Fidel Castro, giving the Republicans some great clips and pretty much ensuring that he'll lose Florida. 

Do...do they not have any strategists on this campaign? Or is he another live wire like Trump who doesn't like "being handcuffed?"?

Unlike Trump, I don't think he's stupid. So why on earth would he think this is a good idea?

[anaandrade]

7 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Great, I just saw that Bernie went on 60 Minutes tonight and partially defended Fidel Castro, giving the Republicans some great clips and pretty much ensuring that he'll lose Florida. How are we supposed to win without Florida? Not only that, but he was unable to give any details about how he would actually get his plans paid for. This is the Republicans' dream opponent.

I need a facepalm emoji.

I'm gonna take a guess and say that Sanders will be heavily attacked in the upcoming debate.

[formergothardite]

8 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Great, I just saw that Bernie went on 60 Minutes tonight and partially defended Fidel Castro, giving the Republicans some great clips and pretty much ensuring that he'll lose Florida. How are we supposed to win without Florida? Not only that, but he was unable to give any details about how he would actually get his plans paid for. This is the Republicans' dream opponent.

I really think this is why Russia wants to help him win the primary, they strongly feel Trump can easily beat him. 

WTF is wrong with him?

[front hugs > duggs]

I keep praying that Bernie gets towards the end and is just like, ehhh I'm out. Vote for my good friend Liz instead! 

[fraurosena]

11 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I really think this is why Russia wants to help him win the primary, they strongly feel Trump can easily beat him. 

WTF is wrong with him?

Russia doesn't want to help him in the primary per se. The only thing Russia really wants to do is to sow discord. They're actively, and not even so secretly, backing both Trump on the far right and Bernie on the far left. Russia doesn't really care who wins the elections, as long as Americans are infighting.

Divide et impera, as Gaius Julius Caesar said. Divide and conquer.

 

[nausicaa]

13 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I really think this is why Russia wants to help him win the primary, they strongly feel Trump can easily beat him. 

WTF is wrong with him?

I saw a tweet talking about all the projected oppo research the Republicans are compiling right now.

"The Democrats are about to walk into a nuclear assault with a fanny pack."

[fraurosena]

30 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I saw a tweet talking about all the projected oppo research the Republicans are compiling right now.

"The Democrats are about to walk into a nuclear assault with a fanny pack."

Seriously though, do we really know what the Dems are planning? And more importantly, should we? At this point, we have no idea what they might be cooking up behind the scenes -- and that's just as it should be.

I'd rather be surprised by their tactics. Because if we're surprised, so are the Rs.