2020 Presidential Election

[PseudoSABR]

 

Vanimal might be anti-Bernie, but most people are just looking at the map wondering how he changes Clinton's results.  I simply don't see how he does without a dramatic change in his voting bloc.  

 

Plus, I think Bernie looks poorly on a debate stage with Trump.  Bernie looked like the passionate, fresh candidate because it was Hillary Clinton.  When you've got two angry old white dudes on a debate stage, I'm sad to say, Trump will come off as the more personable one.  And that will work against Bernie in areas of the country that he needs to flip.

Some of this might be true.  But I'll keep saying turnout, turnout, turnout.  Sure, a few people like Vanimal will stay home (which I kind of doubt, honestly; or at least I hope), but a ton of young people will be motivated.  And I think we're all underselling Bernie's cross-appeal with Trump, that blue-collar white people liked Bernie too (a few of my family members as anecdotal evidence).  I think Bernie plays way better in the rust belt than Clinton did. 

 

I'm not convinced Bernie is the best choice, or that I will vote for him in the primary.  But the notion that Bernie as the nominee guarantees Trump isn't based in empirical evidence, and is a lot of self-projection.  (And it's most coming from never-Trumper conservatives on twitter.)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Trump would have cast the election as a straight-up referendum on Socialism versus Capitalism, and would have won by a bigger margin than he did against Hillary. The biggest thing Trump is outstanding at is finding a weakness in a rival's armor and hammering at it. Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary..... Crazy Bernie and/or Socialist Bernie (Bernie Marx?) would have had little chance.

And then after Trump beats Bernie in this scenario, all Democrats ever talk about is how Hillary would have destroyed Trump in the General? Hey, I would have thought so too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Some of this might be true.  But I'll keep saying turnout, turnout, turnout.  Sure, a few people like Vanimal will stay home (which I kind of doubt, honestly; or at least I hope), but a ton of young people will be motivated.  And I think we're all underselling Bernie's cross-appeal with Trump, that blue-collar white people liked Bernie too (a few of my family members as anecdotal evidence).  I think Bernie plays way better in the rust belt than Clinton did. 

 

I'm not convinced Bernie is the best choice, or that I will vote for him in the primary.  But the notion that Bernie as the nominee guarantees Trump isn't based in empirical evidence, and is a lot of self-projection.  (And it's most coming from never-Trumper conservatives on twitter.)

 

You keep saying you don't want to rely on turning out young people....and then you argue it's the key.  You post nearly nothing in terms of empirical evidence.  Most of what you have is your ideology and your belief in it's ability to win out.  That's fine, but you don't get to wag that finger.

 

Here's the simple fact - other than Michigan and Wisconsin, Hillary beat Bernie in the primaries in every single swing state.  And those two wins by Bernie were very narrow.  Meanwhile, in rust belt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania the results were dramatic for Clinton.  Same for many swing states like Arizona, Nevad, Florida, etc.  For all this hindsight talk about Bernie enthusiasm...it didn't help him beat Hillary.  It wasn't likely to have some dramatically different result against Trump.  

 

Hillary's problem was not turnout.  So making that your hill is ignoring the lessons of the last defeat.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You keep saying you don't want to rely on turning out young people....and then you argue it's the key.  You post nearly nothing in terms of empirical evidence.  Most of what you have is your ideology and your belief in it's ability to win out.  That's fine, but you don't get to wag that finger.

 

Here's the simple fact - other than Michigan and Wisconsin, Hillary beat Bernie in the primaries in every single swing state.  And those two wins by Bernie were very narrow.  Meanwhile, in rust belt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania the results were dramatic for Clinton.  Same for many swing states like Arizona, Nevad, Florida, etc.  For all this hindsight talk about Bernie enthusiasm...it didn't help him beat Hillary.  It wasn't likely to have some dramatically different result against Trump.  

 

Hillary's problem was not turnout.  So making that your hill is ignoring the lessons of the last defeat.

I never said I don't want to rely on turn out.  I've always said that enthusiasm and authenticity were key.  Whether or not turnout was the problem with 2016 (I think it certainly was in the states you mention), doesn't mean that turn-out in 2020 won't substantially help the Democrats. (Also part of my argument is that Bernie has appeal to these white working class voters that Clinton did not!)  We all know so many people who did not vote for Hillary or Trump because they liked neither.  

 

By the time many of the states voted in the primary, Hillary had all but guaranteed the nominee because of the super delegate fiasco.  Did you forget about that? That too affected turn out. 

 

I think the source of the defeat of 2016 is exactly what you are preaching now, calculated practicality towards the center, which rings of both elitism and lacks authenticity.   (Clinton, Kerry, Gore redux; yawn). 

 

As far as empirical evidence, I'll continue to trumpet how popular those crazy socialist ideas are.  And again, I point to Florida where turn-out drove Gillum-the-socialist to win the primary when polls had him as fourth and nearly took him to office in a state Trump won.  

 

Look, we all hate the word "socialist" and think it's some baggage, but I think over the campaign, it will be the policies that matter and the person authentically speaking behalf of those policies.  (Nevermind who ever the candidate will be will be shamed with that label).  Running anti-Trump, imho, is the weakest way to win the white house.   I think any of the candidates can beat Trump; he's deeply unpopular (of course things could change).

[TheLeviathan]

I presented empirical evidence and you countered with a lot of fluff and then an example of a guy who lost to a Trump-like schmo in a key state.

 

Where's that Nathan Fillon gif when you need it...

[PseudoSABR]

 

I presented empirical evidence and you countered with a lot of fluff and then an example of a guy who lost to a Trump-like schmo in a key state.

Where's that Nathan Fillon gif when you need it...

No, you pointed to a single article that showed turnout was where it was expected.  I'm saying that enthusiasm can bring turn out beyond what is expected, in fact it's the crux of my argument.  And I'm also saying that Bernie might appeal to those Obama/Trump voters.  There just isn't evidence for the counter-factual/hypothetical, so quit asking for it, and claiming victory. 

 

Low turnout didn't lose the 2016 election, but high turnout can win the 2020 election.  Can you dig?

[ewen21]

Bernie would set us back a couple of generations. Trump is OLD but Bernie is decrepit. Would be electing a 78-year-old president. He would be a nightmare for us dealing with the Middle East, North Korea and the BRIC nations.

 

 

Move on from Sanders. He makes zero sense

[ashbury]

And then after Trump beats Bernie in this scenario, all Democrats ever talk about is how Hillary would have destroyed Trump in the General? Hey, I would have thought so too.

Sure, but there's a difference. Had Bernie been nominated, I never would have been persuaded that someone widely thought at the time to be crooked could make a catchphrase like Crooked Hillary stick. So yeah, I and others would have been wrong, and blithely unaware that we were.

 

But in our actual situation, we can look at what Nixon (closest thing to Trump, as it happens) did to McGovern at the polls in '72, and use it as a pretty sure guide.

 

The country hasn't changed that much. The great mass of voters in the middle would rather have a candidate whom they personally despise, over an economic philosophy they are frightened to death of.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, you pointed to a single article that showed turnout was where it was expected.  I'm saying that enthusiasm can bring turn out beyond what is expected, in fact it's the crux of my argument.  And I'm also saying that Bernie might appeal to those Obama/Trump voters.  There just isn't evidence for the counter-factual/hypothetical, so quit asking for it, and claiming victory. 

 

Low turnout didn't lose the 2016 election, but high turnout can win the 2020 election.  Can you dig?

 

I'm sorry....where was your empirical evidence?  

 

You began that road and demanded it of me.  Hell, you're still holding me to it in this post despite that fact that I A) did post an article with evidence and B ) also referenced you to all the data of the primaries.  I reviewed your posts and see nothing in the way of what you demanded.  One would think, if I am held to posting evidence, you might be too.

 

And, here's the thing, we DO have pretty good evidence for why Bernie would have lost.  We have a ton of polling about the popularity of the word "socialism".  We have the primary turnouts and demographics.  

 

I'm not claiming victory, but I will claim that you continue to not play fair with your own arguments.

[Mr. Brooks]

Well, I'm pretty sure Vanimal lives in Texas, so no, his vote doesn't count.

In 20 years, perhaps, but not now.

That's the problem I have with the Electoral College. Vanimal has a constitutional right to vote, but because he doesn't live in a swing state, his vote is effectively meaningless.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm sorry....where was your empirical evidence?  

 

You began that road and demanded it of me.  Hell, you're still holding me to it in this post despite that fact that I A) did post an article with evidence and B ) also referenced you to all the data of the primaries.  I reviewed your posts and see nothing in the way of what you demanded.  One would think, if I am held to posting evidence, you might be too.

 

And, here's the thing, we DO have pretty good evidence for why Bernie would have lost.  We have a ton of polling about the popularity of the word "socialism".  We have the primary turnouts and demographics.  

 

I'm not claiming victory, but I will claim that you continue to not play fair with your own arguments.

I don't think I asked you for empirical evidence; we're speculating about what is going to happen and what the counter-factual would have been.  There's not empirical evidence of that. 

 

What evidence there is that Bernie would have lost isn't convincing to me, and there's a lot of confirmation bias (which I'm guilty of too) going on in this thread, given the paltry evidence available.

[PseudoSABR]

If this came out on Monday...

[Mike Sixel]

 

Vanimal might be anti-Bernie, but most people are just looking at the map wondering how he changes Clinton's results.  I simply don't see how he does without a dramatic change in his voting bloc.  

 

Plus, I think Bernie looks poorly on a debate stage with Trump.  Bernie looked like the passionate, fresh candidate because it was Hillary Clinton.  When you've got two angry old white dudes on a debate stage, I'm sad to say, Trump will come off as the more personable one.  And that will work against Bernie in areas of the country that he needs to flip.

 

But that's a discussion for not nominating him, not for not voting for him if he is the nominee....two different discussions entirely.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, I'm pretty sure Vanimal lives in Texas, so no, his vote doesn't count.
In 20 years, perhaps, but not now.
That's the problem I have with the Electoral College. Vanimal has a constitutional right to vote, but because he doesn't live in a swing state, his vote is effectively meaningless.

 

I was trying to be hopeful that TX might be a swing state, unlike OR, which surely is not.

 

We agree on the EC for sure, it's criminally undemocratic.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But that's a discussion for not nominating him, not for not voting for him if he is the nominee....two different discussions entirely.

 

True, but I think those concerns can go together as well.  Some people don't want Bernie even running because they just don't like him.  Others don't want him because, if he's nominated, it may cause another Trump victory.  

 

I think you're right that we're blending two conversation though.  For my part, I'm ok with voting for Bernie.  I'm even ok nominating Bernie IF he shows significant changes in the voting demographics that will be key for this election.  If he can win - nominate him and I'll vote for him.

 

Personally, however, the data we have on him from 2016 suggests (pretty confidently IMO) that he would've lost.  I'm not sure anything has changed meaningfully since then.

[PseudoSABR]

[ewen21]

 

I don't think I asked you for empirical evidence; we're speculating about what is going to happen and what the counter-factual would have been.  There's not empirical evidence of that. 

 

What evidence there is that Bernie would have lost isn't convincing to me, and there's a lot of confirmation bias (which I'm guilty of too) going on in this thread, given the paltry evidence available.

Aside from Bernie Sanders being not racist, or homophobic, or an Islamaophobe or a liar; what draws you to him so much?  Why should he be elected president according to PseudoSABR?

[LaBombo]

 

Joe Biden
✔
@JoeBiden
Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.

 

It's very commendable of Biden to meet his responsibility. But when he does, I hope that he doesn't put his hands on responsibility's shoulders or smell its hair.

[ashbury]

It's very commendable of Biden to meet his responsibility. But when he does, I hope that he doesn't put his hands on responsibility's shoulders or smell its hair.

I'm less hopeful that Trump would refrain from grabbing anything on Responsibility.

[ewen21]

 

 

 

Personally, however, the data we have on him from 2016 suggests (pretty confidently IMO) that he would've lost.  I'm not sure anything has changed meaningfully since then.

I would love to see a Trump/Sanders debate.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Aside from Bernie Sanders being not racist, or homophobic, or an Islamaophobe or a liar; what draws you to him so much?  Why should he be elected president according to PseudoSABR?

I'm not sure that I'll necessarily support Bernie, but he was the first Presidential candidate that spoke to my actual values (as a liberal), and didn't try to shoot for some calculated middle or come off as patronizingly elite.  He didn't start negotiating at the 50-yard line, and rather had aspirational ideas. 

 

The same can be said for a lot candidates this time around, but at least with Bernie i know he isn't jumping on board with policy ideas because they are popular; he's authentic.   I know that with Warren too (who honestly is much better at explaining how she'll pay for things).

[LaBombo]

 

I'm less hopeful that Trump would refrain from grabbing anything on Responsibility.

 

He's definitely more likely to brag about it.

[Bark's Lounge]

It may seem like an impossible climb, but I am all about Pete Buttigieg. I think the Gen Xer's and Baby boomers are a part of the problem. We have developed a strange despise for Millennials. Sure some of them are entitled, but name me a generation that didn't have it's problems. I like his ideas, I like his background, he is refreshing, and not part of the DC establishment... he speaks to me. BTW, I am a Gen Xer.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It may seem like an impossible climb, but I am all about Pete Buttigieg. I think the Gen Xer's and Baby boomers are a part of the problem. We have developed a strange despise for Millennials. Sure some of them are entitled, but name me a generation that didn't have it's problems. I like his ideas, I like his background, he is refreshing, and not part of the DC establishment... he speaks to me. BTW, I am a Gen Xer.

 

I don't understand the disdain for our children.......

[ashbury]

I don't understand the disdain for our children.......

Yes, this is a completely new phenomenon.

 

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Socrates (469–399 B.C.)

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, this is a completely new phenomenon.

 

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Socrates (469–399 B.C.)

 

I didn't say it was new.....I said I didn't understand it. I have more to say, but it's my bday and I'm trying really hard not to post negative thoughts today......

[LaBombo]

 

I didn't say it was new.....I said I didn't understand it. I have more to say, but it's my bday and I'm trying really hard not to post negative thoughts today......

 

Happy birthday, you crotchety old so-and-so! Now finish your cake and go get those Millennials off your lawn.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It may seem like an impossible climb, but I am all about Pete Buttigieg. I think the Gen Xer's and Baby boomers are a part of the problem. We have developed a strange despise for Millennials. Sure some of them are entitled, but name me a generation that didn't have it's problems. I like his ideas, I like his background, he is refreshing, and not part of the DC establishment... he speaks to me. BTW, I am a Gen Xer.

 

What I like about him is that he's an intellectual without being an elite.  However, when you read something like this, you can't help but hear liberals basically repeating this. 

 

In many ways, he is also the "hedge to the center" or whatever other equivalent nonsense. I worry that will doom him, but I wish it wouldn't.  He's what I would call "conversational".  He's smart, has a lot to say, has an interesting background, and is willing to share without feeling like he's delivering a lecture.  Trump was good at being conversational.  So was Obama.  And Bush.  And Clinton.  Hell....seems to be a trend even!

 

He's one of the few candidates, along with probably Warren and Klobuchar, who really excel at this.  I hope he gets a fair shake at the nomination.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I don't understand the disdain for our children.......

Despise shouldn't be there if I am understanding your post correct. I was echoing what I F'ing hear all the time. It is fraudulent.

 

 

[Bark's Lounge]

I absolutely do not despise Millennials FWIW. Go Mayor Pete!!!