2020 Presidential Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's reasonable. He seems prepared to spend an unprecedented amount of his own money. And it certainly will make some difference. But not enough to make a plurality of Democrats vote for him in enough states to be a real factor in the nomination process.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tension is brewing between Sanders and Warren. A report came out earlier that Sanders told Warren in a meeting in December 2018 that a woman could not win the presedency. Sanders angrily denied the report but Warren has now put out a statement saying that it is true.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

From what I read, it was two people Warren had spoken to after the 2018 meeting that are the source of the 'leak,' which I'll call it given that it was a private conversation Warren had with Sanders (and I believe what he said was that he didn't think a woman could win the presidency in 2020).

I'm not sure what the point of the leak would be. It shows that Warren divulged the contents of a private conversation, which might not strike people favorably. And it might drive a wedge between them, as it is something he probably would have preferred she not share with anyone. Maybe that was the point of the leak. I have been reading that establishment forces would like to see them start going after each other.

[Alatar]

And the Democrats continue to eat themselves alive. Looks like Trump 2020 for sure.

[yovargas]

And the Democrats continue to eat themselves alive. Looks like Trump 2020 for sure.

It's weird how I only ever see that kind of thinking get applied to the Dems. The last Republican primary was much, much, much uglier than the current Dem primary. But when they picked their winner, the party all quickly rallied behind them. I see little reason to think the same won't happen this time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nonetheless, Al has a point. Despite the fact that the Republican primary was much, much uglier than the Democratic primary in 2016, the Democrats never coalesced around their nominee, resulting in a loss that never should have happened. I hope that it doesn't happen again this year, but I see little reason to be optimistic.

[Dave_LF]

Democrats can't get away with acting like jackasses (irony intended). If that's what the voters want, they'll just pick a Republican, since Republicans are way better at it.

[Cerin]

With apologies for going on about Bloomberg, I just read an article (which I'm not linking to because it looks like a nasty right-wing website) which proposes that Bloomberg knows he isn't going to be the nominee, but is spending all of this money to do well enough so that when the convention goes to a second ballot,* he will be in a position to influence the choice made by the super delegates, and would petition for someone outside the current crop of candidates. His determination is reportedly not to be President himself, but to prevent a second Trump term at all cost by ensuring there is a strong, viable nominee. (Sounds a bit too altruistic to me.)

*I've read that because of the way the Democratic primaries proportionally allocate delegates, if no one is well ahead by March (or maybe the end of March?), it becomes mathematically impossible for anyone to amass sufficient delegates to win on the first ballot.

edit

In defense of both Warren and Sanders, it is quite possible for two people to remember a conversation differently.

edit spelling

[elengil]

In defense of both Warren and Sanders, it is quite possible for two people to remember a conversation differently.

QFT!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

With apologies for going on about Bloomberg, I just read an article (which I'm not linking to because it looks like a nasty right-wing website) which proposes that Bloomberg knows he isn't going to be the nominee, but is spending all of this money to do well enough so that when the convention goes to a second ballot,* he will be in a position to influence the choice made by the super delegates, and would petition for someone outside the current crop of candidates. His determination is reportedly not to be President himself, but to prevent a second Trump term at all cost by ensuring there is a strong, viable nominee. (Sounds a bit too altruistic to me.)

That actually seems to be quite likely to me, though I think it is unlikely (but not impossible) that someone outside of the current field will be chosen.

*I've read that because of the way the Democratic primaries proportionally allocate delegates, if no one is well ahead by March (or maybe the end of March?), it becomes mathematically impossible for anyone to amass sufficient delegates to win on the first ballot.

I'm not sure that this is accurate, but it is true that with California having moved its primary to March the number of delegates is much more weighted to the earlier period. I'd like to see a breakdown of this was calculated. The more I think about it, the more I think that is almost certainly not true (though I do think that there is a higher than usual possibility of a brokered convention.

[Faramond]

And the Democrats continue to eat themselves alive. Looks like Trump 2020 for sure.

I don't think the facts back this up. I mean, why would a primary spat in January between the candidates in second and third place mean that Trump will surely win?

Trump is very unpopular. Historically unpopular. With good reason, I think. Sure, his base still loves him, and the Republican Party has gone all in with Trump, but that's not enough for him to be reelected, not by itself.

Trump beat Clinton by very narrow margins in a handful of swing states because she was as unpopular as he was. Will the new Democratic nominee be as unpopular as Clinton was? None of them have the long history in the public eye she did, or the spouse she had, or the personality she had, or the scandal she had.

I think for the purposes of beating Trump it would be good if Warren and Sanders weakened each other. They are the two candidates most likely to scare persuadable voters into voting for the devil they know once they start talking about major overhauls to huge sectors of the US economy. But Trump is so unpopular and he has delivered so few presidential moments that I think I would start from the premise that any Democratic nominee should be rather heavily favored, even Sanders or Warren.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump is very unpopular. Historically unpopular.

Yes. Nationally. I would eat not only my hat but my shoes as well if he won the popular vote. But he could conceivably lose the popular vote by 5 million votes and still win the electoral college. His historical unpopularity is largely driven by the fact that he has a negative rating of between 20 and 35 points in some of the most populous states in the country. But his unpopularity is much less in the few battleground states that will decide the election. Even though he has a net unpopular rating in most of those states of up to 10 points, he could still win the majority of those states due to the greater enthusiasm of his base versus the fractured nature of those that oppose him. Anecdotally I still see Sanders supporters who say that they wont vote for any other Democratic candidate other than Sanders in the general election, and some that say that they will vote for Trump even though they hate him if the Democrats don't nominate Sanders, because doing so would somehow "wake up" the party.

So while you are right that Trump should lose, he may not.

ETA: here is a site that tracks approval by state: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/

[Faramond]

Oh, I would never say that Trump can't win. But I just can't see the case for having him favored at this point, much less saying that he'll win for sure.

To me a lot of the skepticism that people feel around Trump losing in 2020 is an overreaction to the overconfidence that they may have had in 2016 and then the shock of seeing him win.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Agreed. It's hard for me to see him winning again, but I still can't understand, even with all of the factors that went into Clinton losing (the undeniable impact of sexism on a female candidate, the multipronged Russian effort on social media and elsewhere to help Trump, the fractured nature of the Democratic electorate, the October surprise of Comey's announcement that the email investigation was back on, the arrogant over-confidence of her campaign) I still can't believe that the United States elected someone like Trump president, and with the economy humming along the way it is, I fear that it will happen again.

[Faramond]

So ...
If you're into snakes or weird feuds between Democratic candidates you should check out what is happening in Warren's twitter replies.
It's like that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, but all of the snakes that I have been seeing are coming from Sanders supporters, directed at Warren. And those are the nice comments.

[Faramond]

Yes indeed, those snakes are coming from Bernie supporters. I know I should be appalled but I just think it's funny. In a way it's actually raising the typical level of Twitter discourse.

The whole thing is kind of amazing. The he-said she-said, the way the moderator just straight up assumed that Warren was telling the truth after Bernie denied her version (awkward!), the way she wouldn't shake his hand, the petty but kind of awesome response by crazy Bernie fans -- all while Biden mumbles and stumbles his way to victory.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

On a slightly different note, your former Representative, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, made a statement the other day to the effect that the real reason Nancy Pelosi delayed the impeachment articles was to hurt Sanders and Warren and help Biden win the nomination. While I am doubtful that that is really true, I thought it was interesting possibility, and not one that I would completely reject.

[Faramond]

I thought she was delaying impeachment for dramatic effect.

wait wait wait wait maybe-no wait wait wait

wait


wait



NOW!

I'm not sure how delaying helps Biden and hurts Warren and Sanders though.

It is my understanding that "My Kevin" McCarthy has been piling up an impressive list of moronic and constitutionally ignorant pro-Trump statements.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In theory, the delay would hurt Sanders and Warren by requiring them to participate in the trial while the first caucuses and primaries took place.

I didn't mean to imply any offense by referring to McCarthy as your former representative. I apologize if it was taken that way.