2020 Democratic Primaries

[RandBlade]

They may not. But there's a chance they will if its reduced to two, there's no chance they will if it remains a crowd like this.

If it remains like this then Sanders is a lock. And he will be thrashed by Trump in November.

[Steely Glint]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

[Aimless]

Should distinguish between state level polls of primaries just up ahead and national polls (in a winner-takes-all plurality voting system) months ahead.

[RandBlade]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html

[Steely Glint]

So, the lesson you're taking from 2016 is "the opposite of what the polls say will happen"?

[RandBlade]

No, the lesson I'm taking from 2016 is "take the polls with a pinch of salt" plus its not a first past the post nationwide election.

[Steely Glint]

So where does your certainty that Trump will thrash Sanders come from?

[Loki]

No, the lesson I'm taking from 2016 is "take the polls with a pinch of salt" plus its not a first past the post nationwide election.

The national polls were within 1%. Unfortunately, they're only able to predict the popular vote. State-level polls are less accurate.

[RandBlade]

The national polls were within 1%. Unfortunately, they're only able to predict the popular vote. State-level polls are less accurate.

The final polls were within 1%, look back earlier eg at March and there's a world of difference.

[Steely Glint]

Any of the current nominees can beat Trump, but that doesn't mean they will. I wouldn't want to go around making predictions about a campaign that hasn't even really started yet.

[EyeKhan]

I think Sanders would have beat Trump in 2016, but today I think he's too old. Not sure what a Sanders presidency would accomplish, either, or any presidency today, faced with a split Congress.

And I have a feeling Trump will declare victory regardless of what the election results are, and if you're certain the nation will unite and reject such a declaration, that he'll be driven out of office on schedule, don't be.

[LittleFuzzy]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

Who cares about the popular vote? I said earlier I thought Sanders was the best shot to lose to Trump. I expect he'll still carry the popular vote even then. But it doesn't matter. Hilary won the popular vote in 2016 too. She's still not President.

[Steely Glint]

I have presented evidence that Sanders is a viable candidate to beat Trump: polls. I have seen people question the validity of this evidence (polls aren't reliable, Sanders may win the popular vote but lose the electoral college) and I accept these are valid objections.

However, that doesn't mean we immediately default to the position that Sander's can't beat Trump. It means we don't know what's going to happen, though we do have one indication that Sanders is a viable prospect in the general, as limited as it may be.

I've asked several times for people to give me some kind of justification for this. Theory crafting from people operating under assumptions about the way the electorate is thinking from about 2013 and desperate to convince themselves that Trump was a one off aberration from out of nowhere, that the political and economic situation in American and elsewhere isn't damaged almost beyond repair, and that an, airquotes, "sensible", centrist president is coming next to restore a status quo that's done nothing but fail for the past 20 years do not cut it. I can dream up just as many reasons about why Sanders is the best person to beat Trump, but until we actually see how the campaign plays out it's all basically guesswork anyway.

In short, I don't have much, but I have something. You have nothing.

[Aimless]

Biggest weakness is that Sanders is strong among less likely voters (eg. young people) and non-representative groups (primary voters).

[LittleFuzzy]

I have presented evidence that Sanders is a viable candidate to beat Trump: polls. I have seen people question the validity of this evidence (polls aren't reliable, Sanders may win the popular vote but lose the electoral college) and I accept these are valid objections.

However, that doesn't mean we immediately default to the position that Sander's can't beat Trump. It means we don't know what's going to happen, though we do have one indication that Sanders is a viable prospect in the general, as limited as it may be.

I've asked several times for people to give me some kind of justification for this. Theory crafting from people operating under assumptions about the way the electorate is thinking from about 2013 and desperate to convince themselves that Trump was a one off aberration from out of nowhere, that the political and economic situation in American and elsewhere isn't damaged almost beyond repair, and that an, airquotes, "sensible", centrist president is coming next to restore a status quo that's done nothing but fail for the past 20 years do not cut it. I can dream up just as many reasons about why Sanders is the best person to beat Trump, but until we actually see how the campaign plays out it's all basically guesswork anyway.

In short, I don't have much, but I have something. You have nothing.

All right, let's look at some of these polling numbers.
Michigan, Trump's narrowest margin of victory in 2016 and one of the key states which tipped him over
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6768.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...berg-6997.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-6761.html
All three similar, the others poll about 3% leads

Wisconsin, also very narrow
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6850.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...-6849.htmlLead for Biden, dead heat for Sanders, everyone else polls under Trump. There's only been a single Bloomberg poll though

Pennsylvania (Trump could have lost both Michigan and Wisconsin and still won after he picked up Penn)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6862.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-6861.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...berg-7030.html
Again only one poll for Bloomberg. Klobuchar actually polls ahead of Sanders here, and he does worse than both Biden and Bloomberg.

Wisconsin and Michigan were decided by less than 30,000 votes each. In Pennsylvania the margin was 70,000

And let's throw in Florida and North Carolina since both were "close" (but over 100,000 voter margins for Trump) and have hefty electoral counts.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6842.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-6841.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...berg-7033.html
(Again, just one Bloomberg poll, Trump beats the other candidates)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6745.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-6744.html
(Trump beats the others, there is no Bloomberg poll)

Sanders may win. But if he does, it's going to be by the skin of his teeth electorally.

Better dreaming for the centrist than deluding yourself that it's finally the time the US will swing European-progressive, Steely. The Democratic Party may end up deciding it is. If they are stupid enough to think that, though, I'm betting they're going to keep losing to the Trump's of the country until they learn better.

[Loki]

I have presented evidence that Sanders is a viable candidate to beat Trump: polls. I have seen people question the validity of this evidence (polls aren't reliable, Sanders may win the popular vote but lose the electoral college) and I accept these are valid objections.

However, that doesn't mean we immediately default to the position that Sander's can't beat Trump. It means we don't know what's going to happen, though we do have one indication that Sanders is a viable prospect in the general, as limited as it may be.

I've asked several times for people to give me some kind of justification for this. Theory crafting from people operating under assumptions about the way the electorate is thinking from about 2013 and desperate to convince themselves that Trump was a one off aberration from out of nowhere, that the political and economic situation in American and elsewhere isn't damaged almost beyond repair, and that an, airquotes, "sensible", centrist president is coming next to restore a status quo that's done nothing but fail for the past 20 years do not cut it. I can dream up just as many reasons about why Sanders is the best person to beat Trump, but until we actually see how the campaign plays out it's all basically guesswork anyway.

In short, I don't have much, but I have something. You have nothing.

Trump and his media have intentionally refrained from attacking Sanders, even offering him some muted support. Do you think that will still be the case if Sanders wins the nomination?

[Steely Glint]

So

a) The idea that Trump automatically thrashes Bernie is bollocks
b) When I said the election is too close to call at this stage, I was right
c) In terms of beating Trump the best choices based on the polls right now are Biden followed by Sanders. But Biden's chances of getting the nomination aren't looking too hot right now.

Better dreaming for the centrist than deluding yourself that it's finally the time the US will swing European-progressive, Steely.

It will never be time for the US to swing to European style progressive until the Democrats are actually prepared to fight for it, rather than constantly second guessing themselves about what they can get done because they think the political climate is some unchanging and unchangeable brute fact in the world. The countries not gonna socialize itself.

Unlike the Republicans who have a generally more unpopular set of policies and a smaller base of support and yet have managed to move the country further and further rightwards, simply by acting as though everyone already agrees with them and being prepared to fight for what they believe in they're trying to achieve. I hate them, but they get shit done, whereas Democrats just automatically compromise on everything before the debate has started.

In short: you get nothing if you wait for it

[Aimless]

Republicans have structural electoral advantages and a propensity for voting. Dems have structural electoral disadvantages and a propensity for not voting. The calculus is not the same for both sides; one side has to leverage advantages, while the other side has to compensate for disadvantages, necessitating different strategies.

[Steely Glint]

Trump and his media have intentionally refrained from attacking Sanders, even offering him some muted support. Do you think that will still be the case if Sanders wins the nomination?

He'll attack whoever gets the nomination, it's what you're supposed to do in an election, what's your point? "Better compromise on everything we want in case the other side attacks us in the media"

[Steely Glint]

Republicans have structural electoral advantages

How did that happen? I guess we'll never know.

Anyway, I'm disgusted that no one will agree to my extremely reasonable compromise on the issue of Bloomberg from earlier, which is that we feed him to sharks, and instead are insisting on the extreme, partisan position that we merely don't make him the nominee. I am giving up on my deeply held conviction that he should be crippled, mutilated and thrown into a volcano here and you guys won't even move your position.

Is... is this too on the nose? I feel like it's too on the nose.

[Loki]

He'll attack whoever gets the nomination, it's what you're supposed to do in an election, what's your point? "Better compromise on everything we want in case the other side attacks us in the media"

The point is that the GOP has been attacking all the other Democrats and some of those attacks rub on more mainstream media. They haven't done that with Sanders. Intentionally. And they definitely will once he gets nominated.

[Aimless]

How did that happen? I guess we'll never know.

Anyway, I'm disgusted that no one will agree to my extremely reasonable compromise on the issue of Bloomberg from earlier, which is that we feed him to sharks, and instead are insisting on the extreme, partisan position that we merely don't make him the nominee. I am giving up on my deeply held conviction that he should be crippled, mutilated and thrown into a volcano here and you guys won't even move your position.

Is... is this too on the nose? I feel like it's too on the nose.

It's misguided, because I don't believe your position is extreme.

[Aimless]

As for Republicans' structural electoral advantages, local issues (such as racially and politically biased policies) notwithstanding, much of their advantage stems from the electoral college and from the Senate, which have long favored those states that have been dominated by authoritarian fundamentalist racists Republicans for a long time (though not always). Sanders is probably not the candidate who'll flip that around.

[Aimless]

Definitely vote for the other Joe Biden

Twitter Link

[GGT]

So

a) The idea that Trump automatically thrashes Bernie is bollocks
b) When I said the election is too close to call at this stage, I was right
c) In terms of beating Trump the best choices based on the polls right now are Biden followed by Sanders. But Biden's chances of getting the nomination aren't looking too hot right now.

It will never be time for the US to swing to European style progressive until the Democrats are actually prepared to fight for it, rather than constantly second guessing themselves about what they can get done because they think the political climate is some unchanging and unchangeable brute fact in the world. The countries not gonna socialize itself.

Unlike the Republicans who have a generally more unpopular set of policies and a smaller base of support and yet have managed to move the country further and further rightwards, simply by acting as though everyone already agrees with them and being prepared to fight for what they believe in they're trying to achieve. I hate them, but they get shit done, whereas Democrats just automatically compromise on everything before the debate has started.

In short: you get nothing if you wait for it

You're right! But the US is controlled by political money, not political ideology.

The Republican party's success is demonizing progressive policies, even tho it exposes their hypocrisy (like the Tea Party screaming about SSSocialism, but don't touch our SS or Medicare!). When you say our country isn't gonna socialize itself....you've tapped into the cultural war, and messaging market, that the GOP is so good at. The US will never be a Socialist nation so every Democrat will be painted as a Socialist.

[Steely Glint]

It's misguided, because I don't believe your position is extreme.

The analogies write themselves.

[GGT]

I think Sanders would have beat Trump in 2016, but today I think he's too old. Not sure what a Sanders presidency would accomplish, either, or any presidency today, faced with a split Congress.

All the leading candidates are "too old", including Trump! At least Sanders is running on a platform of We vs Me, downplaying his personal role in a national movement. If he wins the nomination, his running mate could tip the scales, so instead of voters staying home it could mean a landslide win against Trump.

And I have a feeling Trump will declare victory regardless of what the election results are, and if you're certain the nation will unite and reject such a declaration, that he'll be driven out of office on schedule, don't be.

If he loses, he'll say the election was "rigged", and take it to SCOTUS. The court is loathe to weigh in on political decisions, but then there's Bush v Gore....so who knows?

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[GGT]

For all the talk about candidates dropping out in order to narrow the field, I wish the billionaires (Bloomberg and Steyer) would be the first to heed that advice.

It would reflect Democratic values that elections can't be bought, even tho it takes an obscene amount of money to run for office. The only reason these guys are still "viable" is because our system is corrupted by money, and they have enough money to swim without trunks while everyone else drowns. (Yeah, that's a Warren Buffet reference

[LittleFuzzy]

Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's bad to have and spend your own money as opposed to constantly soliciting other people for their money to do the same things. And I really loathe this idea I've been hearing from Sanders, Warren, and Steely, that being successful in business and having a lot of money as a consequence is immoral and automatically strips you of any right to pursue public service. I really don't want to see that kind of poisonous class-obsession in my Democratic Party. Europe can keep those attitudes, along with the latent anti-semitism. We've got enough -ism problems over here as it is.