2020 Democratic Primaries

[wiggin]

All right, the last debate before Super Tuesday is over, so I have nearly all of my data points I'm going to get before I decide how to vote (SC votes on Saturday but I suspect the results are likely to be idiosyncratic).

I'd love to have you guys convince me who makes the most sense strategically. My general goal is to make sure we don't have another four years of Trump, but I have some secondary considerations:

1. No more Trump
2. Ideally a Democratic House (likely) and a narrowed Republican majority in the Senate (possible); I want the candidate to help or at least not hurt downballot races.
3. Substantial Democratic gains in state houses for redistricting (though I question how much effect this will have) - I'm not actually a Democrat but I want to punish the GOP for what they did in 2010.
4. A candidate who doesn't have too many skeletons and has decent policy proposals.

My feelings about the remaining 6 candidates (I'm not included Steyer) stripped of most strategic considerations:

Biden - I think he's getting old and showing it and I am concerned that there's too much baggage associated with the Ukraine shananigans that he is a flawed candidate. More importantly to me, his history of pretty creepy behavior towards women leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Policy-wise there's nothing too dramatic I object to, though I'm not particularly excited about anything either - he does have a pretty broad and deep grasp of policy issues faced by a president, though, especially on foreign policy (which is very weak in this field in general).

Bloomberg - I'm actually not too bothered by the whole 'he's a billionaire trying to buy the election' thing - for one, it makes him less hostage to big donors, and for another money is a major factor in our elections whether or not the candidate is a billionaire (I also have nothing against billionaires in principle, especially when they are someone like Bloomberg who has a sustained history of big-ticket philanthropy). I do think that he appears to be unprepared for a campaign and I'm not convinced he has a great grasp on the full gamut of policy-work that a president needs to address. He did an adequate job in NYC and I appreciate his technocratic approach to problems. It has led to problems - stop and frisk being the biggest one - and he's seemed semi-clueless/tone deaf in trying to understand why he's sometimes been wrong. The whole 'being a dick to women in the workplace' thing is also a black mark. Policy-wise I suspect he'd be adequate with some good areas but I don't have a clue if he has any sense of foreign policy.

Buttigieg - He talks a really nice talk and I like his general approach to thinking about a problem. Unfortunately I think his policy background is way too thin and his ideas often seem half-baked. I also don't think he did a great job in his only major elected post, mayor of South Bend. He had some pretty big misses (which, to be fair, he has acknowledged) and while I think that with more experience he could be something to reckon with, I don't think he has the chops yet. Also not sure about the whole 'will America vote for a gay man' thing, but one could always hope they will.

Klobuchar - Not very good speaking extemporaneously but pretty decent policy background. I like her but think her polling is not going to give her a chance. Also not a fan of the whole 'may be an awful boss' thing. I'm sure it would be an improvement over Trump's zero-sum style, but managing an organization as large as the US executive branch requires a great deal of finesse and management skills, and it's not clear she has them.

Sanders - I don't like his style, his policies, or his supporters. Most of my strategic logic is trying to figure out which person to vote for who can beat Sanders to the nomination. In contrast to some others here, I am not opposed to Sanders just because I think Trump would mop the floor with him (though he probably would), but rather because a Sanders presidency would only be marginally better than a Trump one. He's got a shit-ton of skeletons in his closet that are great ammunition for Trump, though.

Warren - Not a big fan of her policy positions, but I'll grant that she is the wonkiest of the bunch, and has been willing to put detailed policy proposals out when most candidates like to be a bit more vague. She has, however, been mildly-to-crazily dishonest about how she's going to pay for everything (and her wealth tax is obviously a bad idea). I do not like the populist rhetoric of her campaign (especially demonizing the wealthy rather than making arguments about fairness to support additional burden-sharing), but I do like her personally. She's also relatively free of some of the controversies dogging other candidates. I had the opportunity to evaluate her as a candidate for US Senate; I wasn't super impressed then and voted against her in 2012 (though her opponent was hardly amazing). It was a no-brainer to vote for her in 2018, though, against an idiotic Trumpy opponent.


So - who should I vote for? If everyone was guaranteed to beat Trump, I'd probably go for Klobuchar, but I suspect a vote for her would be wasted on Super Tuesday. Should I vote for Bloomberg in the hopes that his advertising blitz will give him an edge over Sanders' current lead in the polls, and assume everyone else is already effectively out? Should I assume that African American and Midwestern support for Biden makes him the only viable candidate who can beat Sanders and Trump? Should I assume the progressive wing is going to win, and support Warren in the hopes that her campaign can siphon votes from Sanders? Should I vote for Buttigieg in the hopes that his strong rhetorical skills, Midwestern base, and 'freshness' give him a compelling edge against Trump? I'm curious what you guys think.

[Wraith]

I'm hoping that we see a couple drop-outs after SC, and also hoping that Warren doesn't drop out. I don't really like any of the field, but I'll vote for whoever has the best shot of beating Sanders if my vote is still going to count after Super Tuesday. I'm hoping that SC will narrow the field ahead of that, because right now things are pretty murky on the moderate side of the party. Bloomberg's focus on Super Tuesday means he's unlikely to drop out before then, and that really makes it hard to guess where things are going, and makes it less likely that any moderate will be able to muster enough support to beat Sanders.

One day I hope I get to vote for a candidate I like instead of just the candidate I dislike the least.

[GGT]

I can't vote in the primaries because I'm registered as "unaffiliated" in PA. Polls are laughable metrics <that lead to the "surprise" election of president Trump>

[Wraith]

I can't vote in the primaries because I'm registered as "unaffiliated" in PA.

You're allowed to change that until April 13th.

[RandBlade]

I could go into a long and detailed explanation as to why I think Sanders has no hope and if I get the time I will - but long story short, Sanders has about as much hope of becoming President as Jeremy Corbyn had of becoming Prime Minister.

A failed Sanders nomination might be capable of nudging the Overton Window somewhat but unlikely much and is guaranteeing 4 more years of Trump worth that? Obama managed to achieve a decent amount in his 8 years and another 4 years of Trump will destroy any hope the Democrats had of keeping the Supreme Court remotely balanced, which you can practically sense the Lewkowski's of America salivating over. So is that worth it?

[Loki]

Wig, wait until after S. Carolina. A lot can happen before now and Super Tuesday. Klobuchar has no chance at this point. Biden has a shot if he does really well in S. Carolina. I also want to see if Bloomberg's unfavorability keeps increasing.

[wiggin]

Wig, wait until after S. Carolina. A lot can happen before now and Super Tuesday. Klobuchar has no chance at this point. Biden has a shot if he does really well in S. Carolina. I also want to see if Bloomberg's unfavorability keeps increasing.

So obviously Biden did better than even the polls suggested; certainly gives him a bit of a boost.

I've been looking at the MA polls to get a sense of what makes the most sense for a vote against Sanders. The state is likely going to go for Sanders first, then Warren. I am unconvinced that Warren has a solid shot given her polling in other states, so that leaves the remaining four to choose from. Klobuchar doesn't look likely to pick up many if any delegates, so that leaves the three B's.

This all comes down to two questions: national chances (in which case Biden seems to be favored overall, suggesting I should try to bump up his delegate count) and in-state delegate counts.

All three of the B's are hovering around the 15% threshold for statewide delegates, but Biden has a slight edge and is more likely to get a post-SC boost. In the district level delegates, that's a bit more complicated. My congressional district is a bad one for both Bloomberg and Biden, with Buttigieg (and, to a lesser extent, Klobuchar) picking up the remaining votes. Buttigieg has a much better chance of getting past the 15% threshold in my congressional district than Biden/Bloomberg, which would take delegates away from Warren and Sanders... but could risk dropping Biden below the threshold in the statewide race (which is worth more delegates than my district).

Barring any surprises, I suspect the most logical vote would be Biden or Buttigieg. I'm very curious to see what the post-SC polling looks like on Monday. If Biden shows him picking up more voting share, it makes sense to vote for him - Buttigieg's national chances are poor and Biden might then clear my district's 15% threshold. If Biden doesn't see a big bounce, I'll probably have to think carefully about which to choose. Bloomberg's polling trajectory and lackluster campaign are reasons to probably avoid voting for him, especially since he's not super likely to hit either the district or the statewide delegate threshold.

Not a great set of options but that's my current thinking.

[RandBlade]

Biden doesn't have the mental faculties to be elected to the United States Senate. Its sad to see him on the stage and Trump would make mincemeat out of him.



Trump doesn't have the mental faculties either, but he bluffs hard and his supporters don't care.

[Loki]

Biden doesn't have the mental faculties to be elected to the United States Senate. Its sad to see him on the stage and Trump would make mincemeat out of him.



Trump doesn't have the mental faculties either, but he bluffs hard and his supporters don't care.

A) Trump is worse, so he wouldn't.
B) Clinton won each debate and it barely mattered.
C) Biden was always like this. He's not a great speaker.

[RandBlade]

Bullshit.

[Steely Glint]

Bullshit.

You should refund that $150 if that's the best you can do.

Actually, don't. He doesn't need the money.

[RandBlade]

I'm not backing Bloomberg, I'd rather Buttigieg wins, but the idea that Bloomberg is the most racist man in America under President Trump is insane. That's like saying Bob Cratchitt is the biggest scrooge at Scrooge & Marley's counting house.

[Steely Glint]

I'm not backing Bloomberg,

It's ok man, I'd take the money too.

I'd rather Buttigieg wins, but the idea that Bloomberg is the most racist man in America under President Trump is insane.

You clearly missed the part where Loki and I used the words "on that stage", as in "amongst the Democratic nominees".

[RandBlade]

It's ok man, I'd take the money too.



You clearly missed the part where Loki and I used the words "on that stage", as in "amongst the Democratic nominees".

Fair point. In which case its a relatively meaningless comment. That's like saying most sexually promiscuous virgin in the nunnery.

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

Bloomberg may challenging be for the record for fastest discovery/scrutiny/rejection cycle. The more Americans learn about him, the less they like what they see.

I am also enjoying the fact that he entered the race ostensibly "stop Bernie Sanders" and yet he has done nothing but split the moderate vote even further, and just given Warren and Bernie a chance to wail on billionaires on TV for a bit.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, and I forgot to address the point that Bloomberg being mega-rich is good because he won't be beholden to big donors. Uh, he *is* a big donor. When we say we want stop the rich influencing politics and policy by making enormous donations to politicians, cutting out the middle man and just having one of them be president directly is not what we had in mind.

[LittleFuzzy]

Oh, and I forgot to address the point that Bloomberg being mega-rich is good because he won't be beholden to big donors. Uh, he *is* a big donor. When we say we want stop the rich influencing politics and policy by making enormous donations to politicians, cutting out the middle man and just having one of them be president directly is not what we had in mind.

See, there's that obsession of yours with the rich as the Enemy of the People again. I don't care if the rich influence politics anymore than I care about labor unions influencing politics. I dislike the direction some try to influence politics (Koch brothers being an example). I can certainly see the argument that the only way to prevent the latter is to put a stop to it in general. But since that's certainly not going to happen this election cycle, the only reason to raise the "big donors are bad for politics" argument against Bloomberg is if you think he's going to be using it to influence politics in a way you really don't like, either as a donor or as a candidate. What immoral rich person agenda is it you think he's pushing Steely? Think that if he's elected he's going to use it to reimplement "stop and frisk" as a national policy with his new half-state/half-corporate goon force and establish "sexual harassment day" by Executive Order? Or do you think it's something worse, that he'll be a fairly standard Democrat, continue the ACA, reopen the borders, raise taxes some to help pay for various social measures but not by huge amounts or try to nationalize industries? How is it, Steely, that you think the only appropriate response to the recent successes the Right has seen is to try and prove true all the fearmongering they've been using to get it?

What I would really like to see (I won't get it, but it's a dream of mine) is for these last eight years and the upcoming four to eight to bring about one of those periodic realignments we see in US politics. The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party has collapsed. It's dead right now, there's no sign of it anywhere. What I would love would be for a moderate Democratic Party to bring those people in, build a policy-dynamic wedding both the need in a modern society to provide adequate social support and responsible fiscal restraint.

[Steely Glint]

See, there's that obsession of yours with the rich as the Enemy of the People again.

You say that as if this is some kind of gotcha, rather than a position I'm more than happy to defend. Maybe we'll have that conversation one day, it's kinda tangential to this thread, but for now I will say that their interests are fundamentally opposed to ours.

I don't care if the rich influence politics anymore than I care about labor unions influencing politics. I dislike the direction some try to influence politics (Koch brothers being an example). I can certainly see the argument that the only way to prevent the latter is to put a stop to it in general.

There's also the argument that it's fundamentally anti-democratic, but I agree that's not the main issue here.

But since that's certainly not going to happen this election cycle, the only reason to raise the "big donors are bad for politics" argument against Bloomberg is if you think he's going to be using it to influence politics in a way you really don't like, either as a donor or as a candidate. What immoral rich person agenda is it you think he's pushing Steely?

De-regulation, tax breaks for his buddies, eternal war, no real progress towards proper health-care, no attempt to curb police violence towards minorities, half measures on climate change etc etc.

Think that if he's elected he's going to use it to reimplement "stop and frisk" as a national policy with his new half-state/half-corporate goon force and establish "sexual harassment day" by Executive Order?

Think stop and fisk or his comments about women just came out nowhere and aren't indicative of his attitudes to women and minorities, and thus a factor in how he'll make policy about them? You want a guy who told a pregnant employee to "kill it" is the right person to be making life and death decisions about policy on reproductive health or on women's access to maternal leave, for example?

How is it, Steely, that you think the only appropriate response to the recent successes the Right has seen is to try and prove true all the fearmongering they've been using to get it?

I think the appropriate response to Republican fearmongering is to push back against it, not go "why yes, high taxes for the rich and moderate social protections is just like communism, we certainly don't believe anything like that"

What I would really like to see (I won't get it, but it's a dream of mine) is for these last eight years and the upcoming four to eight to bring about one of those periodic realignments we see in US politics. The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party has collapsed. It's dead right now, there's no sign of it anywhere. What I would love would be for a moderate Democratic Party to bring those people in, build a policy-dynamic wedding both the need in a modern society to provide adequate social support and responsible fiscal restraint.

The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican party has collapsed because it never existed in any real sense. In the same way their belief in "family values" was never real, just plausible cover story for homophobic policies, their professed belief in "fiscal conservativism" was simply a plausible cover for implementing policies benefit the rich (their true constituency) at their expense of everyone else. The modern Republican party of the Trump era isn't some perversion of the, say, pre-Clinton era Republican party, it's the same institution that no longer needs pretence. They dislike Trump because he's an embarrassment, but one they're prepared to put up with because he's giving them everything they've ever wanted.

[Aimless]

Historically low turnouts, exceptional events, and a dude who essentially bought himself a third term. I dunno mate.

[Loki]

Historically low turnouts, exceptional events, and a dude who essentially bought himself a third term. I dunno mate.

Exceptional events in 1993 and 1997? Exceptional events in 2005? A majority of left-wingers in NYC consistently supported these policies and refused to vote for Democrats seen as weak on crime.

[RandBlade]

Exceptional events in 1993 and 1997? Exceptional events in 2005? A majority of left-wingers in NYC consistently supported these policies and refused to vote for Democrats seen as weak on crime.

There's a sort of yo-yo effect here, being tough on crime works but then because its worked people stop being afraid of the crime and are outraged at the actions taken, so they get dropped, so crime returns, then the call for action returns.

In the noughties here the Labour government increased stop and frisk etc copying New York, it work and crime fell dramatically, then the Tory/Lib Dem coalition largely stopped it on civil liberties concerns saying too many young black men were being targeted by stop and frisk policies. In recent years knife crime has shot up to the point were now lots of young and predominantly black men are getting murdered by knife crime. Its become an epidemic in London. So the government has brought back stop and frisk as a policy and knife crime has started to go back down.

According to that link provided by Steely 90% of murder suspects were black and 80% of stops were black. If the purpose of stop and frisk is to prevent murders then it seems like Bloomberg has a point about maths to me.

[Steely Glint]

There's a sort of yo-yo effect here, being tough on crime works but then because its worked people stop being afraid of the crime and are outraged at the actions taken, so they get dropped, so crime returns, then the call for action returns.

In the noughties here the Labour government increased stop and frisk etc copying New York, it work and crime fell dramatically, then the Tory/Lib Dem coalition largely stopped it on civil liberties concerns saying too many young black men were being targeted by stop and frisk policies. In recent years knife crime has shot up to the point were now lots of young and predominantly black men are getting murdered by knife crime. Its become an epidemic in London. So the government has brought back stop and frisk as a policy and knife crime has started to go back down.

According to that link provided by Steely 90% of murder suspects were black and 80% of stops were black. If the purpose of stop and frisk is to prevent murders then it seems like Bloomberg has a point about maths to me.

Stop and frisk does nothing but waste police time harassing mostly black or asian men out minding their own business, almost all of whom will be innocent because most people aren't criminals and picking people and random to search means... most of the people you search will be innocent.

The idea of finding the tiny proportion of the population who do murders, on their way to do a murder, with random searches of the general population is also extremely fucking stupid.

[Lewkowski]

Stop and frisk does nothing but waste police time harassing mostly black or asian men out minding their own business, almost all of whom will be innocent because most people aren't criminals and picking people and random to search means... most of the people you search will be innocent.

The idea of finding the tiny proportion of the population who do murders, on their way to do a murder, with random searches of the general population is also extremely fucking stupid.

It functions because it makes criminals fearful of carrying weapons since they can be randomly stopped. This isn't a recommendation for it - people have rights and shouldn't be subject to search and seizure without probable cause. A better police tactic is very aggressive borderline entrapment scenarios, since that specifically targets criminals and not just anyone from the community where a lot of criminals exists.

[RandBlade]

Stop and frisk does nothing but waste police time harassing mostly black or asian men out minding their own business, almost all of whom will be innocent because most people aren't criminals and picking people and random to search means... most of the people you search will be innocent.

The idea of finding the tiny proportion of the population who do murders, on their way to do a murder, with random searches of the general population is also extremely fucking stupid.

You're assuming they're being picked at random. Also you're assuming you're trying to find people who do murders while on their way to do a murder. Do you think criminals only carry illegal weapons having premeditated that they're going to kill someone today?

Do you think on the streets of London tomorrow night the only people carrying a knife will be people intending to kill that same day?

Or do you think that people are getting in the dangerous habit of carrying a deadly weapon which then gets used if they happen to get into a fight?

If the Police ensure that deadly weapons aren't being carried then when a fight does start it could still be dangerous but is far less likely to result in a murder.

[Loki]

Where was Sanders during all this? Using his position in Congress to stop this behavior? He's all talk, like a certain failed politician in the UK, who did little other than purge his party of moderates and lose one winnable election after another.

[Steely Glint]

Where was Sanders during all this? Using his position in Congress to stop this behavior? He's all talk, like a certain failed politician in the UK, who did little other than purge his party of moderates and lose one winnable election after another.

Sanders is not as good on race as he should be (one reason I'd prefer Warren, but that's not happening) and I don't like his "everything is about economic inequality actually" analysis of racism and sexism (Indeed, Bloomberg is living proof that these things are not caused by income inequality), but I'd still vote for the guy who failed to do enough to stop [bad thing] over the guy who actually perpetrated [bad thing].

[Steely Glint]

See, this is what makes Bloomberg's "take a math class scrubs lol pwnd" comment so galling, when his approach to probability and statistics is so simplistic.

He's the one who should take a math class, or logic class. Or better yet, a stats class.

[RandBlade]

I'm going to change my opinion of Sanders having no hope in the General Election.

Even after a shocking 5 years or so since Trump jumped on the scene, the reaction to the COVID outbreak is so mangled, so disastrous and so incompetent that I think this could do to him what the Iranian hostage crisis did to Carter.

Sanders should have no hope, but Trump is giving it to him.

[Lewkowski]

I'm going to change my opinion of Sanders having no hope in the General Election.

Even after a shocking 5 years or so since Trump jumped on the scene, the reaction to the COVID outbreak is so mangled, so disastrous and so incompetent that I think this could do to him what the Iranian hostage crisis did to Carter.

Sanders should have no hope, but Trump is giving it to him.

Meh there's really nothing to see here. What are the specific steps that you think Trump is not doing that Sanders would have? Ultimately you want people to do a number of things in this sort of situation:

1. Limit international travel
2. Reinforce basic hygiene/flu protocol (wash your fucking hands, sneeze/cough in your arm, if you sick stay home)
3. Prevent panic

That's about it. And Trump is the best at trying to stop international travel

[Aimless]

Meh there's really nothing to see here. What are the specific steps that you think Trump is not doing that Sanders would have? Ultimately you want people to do a number of things in this sort of situation:

1. Limit international travel
2. Reinforce basic hygiene/flu protocol (wash your fucking hands, sneeze/cough in your arm, if you sick stay home)
3. Prevent panic

That's about it. And Trump is the best at trying to stop international travel

It is genuinely embarrassing to see how eagerly you jump at every opportunity to make yourself look stupid just so that you can also make yourself look like a nativist jackass. The govt has a crucial role in ensuring that there be an effective, well-organized apparatus for monitoring the development of a pandemic such as this one, and responding appropriately, in a timely and decisive manner. For example, you need to have an idea of which areas are affected, how many are infected, how rapidly it's spreading, how ready local govts and facilities are and how they're faring, whether there are any critical shortages, what parts of society and the economy are being affected and how, whether anything has deviated from expectations, etc. The Trump admin has gutted or hobbled those entities that are best suited to develop and implement a strategy for dealing with the epidemic, and also undermined efforts to make the public care enough to even take basic precautions. Limiting international travel is a meaningless gesture at this point, because the virus is already spreading through communities in the US; due to Trump's negligence, you've already lost control of the situation.