|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On January 23 2020 06:22 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2020 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Tough love from Bernie maybe, but I wouldn't group that with Warren's smear and Clinton's Anti-endorsement.
Even ignoring any basis of factuality, the Sander's comments on the other candidates have been based around policy (Joe Biden's record), while say Warren and Clinton's smears are purely non-policy. It is pretty clear at this point that there hasn't been a really effective or impactful attack on Sanders along policy lines (i.e. all of his policies are generally very popular) so the other candidates have to find alternative avenues of attack.
I agree. The only policy scoff that comes to mind is when moderates like Biden and Buttigieg incredulously ask how we can afford universal healthcare and/or criticize the idea of eliminating private insurance.
|
On January 23 2020 06:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2020 06:22 Logo wrote:On January 23 2020 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Tough love from Bernie maybe, but I wouldn't group that with Warren's smear and Clinton's Anti-endorsement.
Even ignoring any basis of factuality, the Sander's comments on the other candidates have been based around policy (Joe Biden's record), while say Warren and Clinton's smears are purely non-policy. It is pretty clear at this point that there hasn't been a really effective or impactful attack on Sanders along policy lines (i.e. all of his policies are generally very popular) so the other candidates have to find alternative avenues of attack. I agree. The only policy scoff that comes to mind is when moderates like Biden and Buttigieg incredulously ask how we can afford universal healthcare and/or criticize the idea of eliminating private insurance.
It makes the "wait till he gets vetted" line of argument kinda laughable to me. The reason they weren't vetting him was because they were conscious of what that did for Trump. Keep him in the front of people's minds and constantly waiting to hear what he'd say or do next.
If it didn't work to stop Trump despite the endless stream of awful lies, it definitely won't work on ideas and a politician that are so well liked and respected across the aisle and beyond politics. That's why they damn near dropped confetti and threw a "Sanders is Over" party on MSNBC/neolib twitter when he had his heart attack or whatever imo.
EDIT: I haven't done the research, but I keep one of the three cable news channels on in the background at one of my jobs and it sure seemed like he got more coverage the couple weeks he was off for that than he did for months before or after.
|
On January 23 2020 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2020 06:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2020 06:22 Logo wrote:On January 23 2020 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Tough love from Bernie maybe, but I wouldn't group that with Warren's smear and Clinton's Anti-endorsement.
Even ignoring any basis of factuality, the Sander's comments on the other candidates have been based around policy (Joe Biden's record), while say Warren and Clinton's smears are purely non-policy. It is pretty clear at this point that there hasn't been a really effective or impactful attack on Sanders along policy lines (i.e. all of his policies are generally very popular) so the other candidates have to find alternative avenues of attack. I agree. The only policy scoff that comes to mind is when moderates like Biden and Buttigieg incredulously ask how we can afford universal healthcare and/or criticize the idea of eliminating private insurance. It makes the "wait till he gets vetted" line of argument kinda laughable to me. The reason they weren't vetting him was because they were conscious of what that did for Trump. Keep him in the front of people's minds and constantly waiting to hear what he'd say or do next. If it didn't work to stop Trump despite the endless stream of awful lies, it definitely won't work on ideas and a politician that are so well liked and respected across the aisle and beyond politics. That's why they damn near dropped confetti and threw a "Sanders is Over" party on MSNBC/neolib twitter when he had his heart attack or whatever imo. EDIT: I haven't done the research, but I keep one of the three cable news channels on in the background at one of my jobs and it sure seemed like he got more coverage the couple weeks he was off for that than he did for months before or after.
I kind of disagree with this analysis.
Bernie running as a Democrat and Trump running as a Republican arent exactly the same situations.
First of all, DNC has more superdelegates than RNC does. That's pretty huge imo.
Second of all, in my opinion, Democrats are far more open to the idea of maintaining status quo/establishment than Republicans are. Republicans, in general, possess a quality of distrust of government (especially establishment government) that is simply nowhere near as widespread or deep seeded in Democrats imo. Democrats on the other hand are more prone to trusting government, including the established government. You can tell by the way many of them raved about Hillary being extremely qualified for the prosition of president thanks to her vast experience in the establishment government....that is what they value. You can also tell by the way Democrats demonize someone like Trump even compared to guys like Bush Jr and McCain...wtf did trump do that is anywhere near as bad as what Bush did? Look at liberal mainstream media...Every time i see clips or something, I see even Fox news giving candidates like Bernie, Yang, and Gabbard better press than CNN/NBC/etc.
I don't buy the idea that Bernies ideas are as popular as people think. He straight up says taxes are going to increase on the middle class and that he's a socialist. America is a country where people value capitalism and the middle class meme has fooled people ranging from janitors to lawyers and small bussiness owners that they are middle class.
|
In polls for the Iowa caucus over the past 3 months:
Biden has alternated between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place;
Sanders has alternated between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place;
Warren has alternated between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place;
Buttigieg has alternated between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place;
And a week before the vote, they're all within a 4% margin.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ylvppYm.jpg)
(compiled by RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html )
While Biden is still leading nationally in Democratic primary polls by quite a bit over second place (Sanders), next week finally starts the real voting process (specifically, the Iowa caucus), which polling has predicted to be a four-person race for several months (Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg). Strong showings in both Iowa and the following week's New Hampshire will be necessary for Warren to stay in the running (Buttigieg will fizzle out, regardless, due to having virtually no support outside of states with 90+% white demographics). If Sanders can come out on top in both Iowa and New Hampshire (and he's leading in the latter's polling), then he could be on pace to upset Biden.
National polls (overall):
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CTJWxiM.png)
(compiled by RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html )
New Hampshire (two weeks from now):
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/o1DkT87.png)
(compiled by RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html )
A few other things to keep in mind:
1. While polls are useful, there are other factors to consider when predicting who the eventual nominee will be (number of voter contributions, quality of endorsements, amount of campaign money available, potential superdelegate shift, etc.), and there is simply no way to know for sure who will win until the states start to tally their votes.
2. While we can't say with certainty who the Democratic nominee will end up being, we can certainly eliminate most of the candidates. While candidates like Klobuchar, Yang, Gabbard, and others might be staying in the race for other reasons (to increase personal and political exposure, to champion certain platforms, etc.), they essentially have a 0% chance of winning. Barring an anomalous tragedy that forces both Biden and Sanders to remove themselves from the race, even Warren (3rd place) will have some trouble staying relevant throughout the entire process.
3. While the head-to-head polls of Biden vs. Trump and Sanders vs. Trump are interesting, the general election is a completely different ball game from the primaries, and it's not like either Sanders or Biden is polling significantly higher against Trump anyway. As someone who really, really wants Trump to lose re-election, I can only hope that moderates and progressives of all ages and all demographics unify behind the eventual Democratic nominee, whether it's Biden or Sanders (or anyone else, as unlikely as that third option will be).
|
By Super Tuesday it will be obvious that it is Bernie vs the people trying to stop Bernie from clinching the nomination (with no real shot of clinching themselves) imo.
Solid write-up btw DPB
|
At this point it definitely does look like it's Sanders vs Biden, with the rest of the candidates serving as perhaps a spoiler for Iowa, but otherwise fairly low on the totem pole, and fading. I do wonder what will happen when the other two drop out, though - how will their supporters split between Biden and Sanders? There's some pretty strong pro-establishment undertones for both of them, yet their support base could very well be moderately pro-Sanders all the same.
I do have to say that I've been pretty impressed with Sanders these past few weeks, though. At about the time of his heart attack, all the folks in the media were saying that 2016 was his chance, and he isn't up to the task this time around. Now, it looks like he's just as strong in the early states as he was back then, but with a much stronger support base in the deep red states where he got pummeled last time. The DNC will certainly bring out the dirty tactics this time around to oppose him as well, but given the 2016 fallout I bet it'll have a much weaker effect.
Regarding the matchup against Trump, my gut feeling is that Biden and Sanders are the only two who stand a chance, and that the rest would get crushed. Current batch of polls seems to be generally supportive of that line of thought. I'm inclined to think more highly of Sanders' chances overall, though, because he is very popular in almost all of the major swing states by virtue of his focus on the working class (Michigan and Wisconsin in particular - Sanders won those states in the primaries, Trump won them in the general). Biggest concern with him seems to be how easy it is to cry "socialist" in order to rally people against him, and I suppose it'd be interesting to see how much that matters with a candidate that owns that "socialist" label more than any major candidate has in the past.
|
On January 27 2020 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
By Super Tuesday it will be obvious that it is Bernie vs the people trying to stop Bernie from clinching the nomination (with no real shot of clinching themselves) imo.
Solid write-up btw DPB
Thanks  When you say "the people trying to stop Bernie", who are you including in that group? Biden is the obvious moderate opponent, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Hillary Clinton makes another few anti-Sanders statements, so they would be two obvious players in that camp. Buttigieg too, maybe... anyone else who's actually relevant?
On January 27 2020 01:27 LegalLord wrote:
At this point it definitely does look like it's Sanders vs Biden, with the rest of the candidates serving as perhaps a spoiler for Iowa, but otherwise fairly low on the totem pole, and fading. I do wonder what will happen when the other two drop out, though - how will their supporters split between Biden and Sanders? There's some pretty strong pro-establishment undertones for both of them, yet their support base could very well be moderately pro-Sanders all the same.
I do have to say that I've been pretty impressed with Sanders these past few weeks, though. At about the time of his heart attack, all the folks in the media were saying that 2016 was his chance, and he isn't up to the task this time around. Now, it looks like he's just as strong in the early states as he was back then, but with a much stronger support base in the deep red states where he got pummeled last time. The DNC will certainly bring out the dirty tactics this time around to oppose him as well, but given the 2016 fallout I bet it'll have a much weaker effect.
Regarding the matchup against Trump, my gut feeling is that Biden and Sanders are the only two who stand a chance, and that the rest would get crushed. Current batch of polls seems to be generally supportive of that line of thought. I'm inclined to think more highly of Sanders' chances overall, though, because he is very popular in almost all of the major swing states by virtue of his focus on the working class (Michigan and Wisconsin in particular - Sanders won those states in the primaries, Trump won them in the general). Biggest concern with him seems to be how easy it is to cry "socialist" in order to rally people against him, and I suppose it'd be interesting to see how much that matters with a candidate that owns that "socialist" label more than any major candidate has in the past.
I definitely agree with your first sentence. In regards to your question in the first paragraph, I would venture that Buttigieg's supporters will almost entirely go to centrist Biden over progressive Sanders (assuming that dichotomy: that Buttigieg's voters will need to choose one of those two), as Buttigieg has painted himself as a much more moderate candidate in many regards (e.g., healthcare). I'm hoping that more of Warren's supporters move to Sanders rather than Biden, although that's a harder split to predict because she's clearly in the middle of them.
In terms of your general election paragraph, I'm not sure how either Sanders or Biden would fare against Trump. I also can't figure out what Biden could do that Hillary hasn't done already; I'd imagine that Trump's debates against Biden would be quite similar to how the ones against Hillary went, and the repeating of various scandals or memes (Democratic establishment candidate, "Lock Her Up" -> "Lock Hunter Up", etc.) would probably have similar effectiveness. It would, again, end up being a coin toss. For that reason, I would like to see something different... particularly, I think Sanders could have a different approach to Trump's shenanigans, which might make the chance of victory slightly better. Only time will tell.
|
On January 27 2020 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
By Super Tuesday it will be obvious that it is Bernie vs the people trying to stop Bernie from clinching the nomination (with no real shot of clinching themselves) imo.
Solid write-up btw DPB Thanks When you say "the people trying to stop Bernie", who are you including in that group? Biden is the obvious moderate opponent, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Hillary Clinton makes another few anti-Sanders statements, so they would be two obvious players in that camp. Buttigieg too, maybe... anyone else who's actually relevant?
I'm saying by Super Tuesday it should be clear no one else can clinch the nomination (besides possibly Biden) outright so anyone still running against will clearly be trying to prevent him from winning rather than trying to win themselves (which I suspect was part of why most of the people ran besides the self-aggrandizement).
For me it's been clear since that was one of the failsafes they put in place back when the DNC was voting on what to do about super delegates.
Warren, Buttigieg, and the rest will really be out (statistically speaking) by SC but Warren will probably stay in just to try to deny Sanders Mass. if I'm going off her last ditch efforts with CNN.
|
On January 27 2020 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2020 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
By Super Tuesday it will be obvious that it is Bernie vs the people trying to stop Bernie from clinching the nomination (with no real shot of clinching themselves) imo.
Solid write-up btw DPB Thanks When you say "the people trying to stop Bernie", who are you including in that group? Biden is the obvious moderate opponent, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Hillary Clinton makes another few anti-Sanders statements, so they would be two obvious players in that camp. Buttigieg too, maybe... anyone else who's actually relevant? I'm saying by Super Tuesday it should be clear no one else can clinch the nomination (besides possibly Biden) outright so anyone still running against will clearly be trying to prevent him from winning rather than trying to win themselves (which I suspect was part of why most of the people ran besides the self-aggrandizement). For me it's been clear since that was one of the failsafes they put in place back when the DNC was voting on what to do about super delegates. Warren, Buttigieg, and the rest will really be out (statistically speaking) by SC but Warren will probably stay in just to try to deny Sanders Mass. if I'm going off her last ditch efforts with CNN.
I could see the typical moderates ganging up on Sanders, but do you really think Warren will try to screw over Sanders too? With the exception of the sexism accusation, they've been working pretty well together as a team against centrists (especially on the debate stage).
|
I could see it. Warren, though nominally progressive, has largely toed the party line whenever push comes to shove. If the Dem party makes a strong, aggressive push to take down Sanders, I'm sure she will fall in line in return for some promise or other (cabinet post, VP nomination, etc). That seems to be the most likely way for her to play it.
I see the CNN debate accusation as more of a last-ditch effort to try to salvage her sinking campaign than a direct opposition to Sanders, but if 2016 is any indication, she certainly isn't going to stick her neck out for Sanders if the party doesn't want her to.
On January 27 2020 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'd imagine that Trump's debates against Biden would be quite similar to how the ones against Hillary went, and the repeating of various scandals or memes (Democratic establishment candidate, "Lock Her Up" -> "Lock Hunter Up", etc.) would probably have similar effectiveness. It would, again, end up being a coin toss. For that reason, I would like to see something different... particularly, I think Sanders could have a different approach to Trump's shenanigans, which might make the chance of victory slightly better. Only time will tell.
Looking into it a bit, I found this fairly recent ad by Trump on the Biden/Ukraine bit:
+ Show Spoiler +
Seems like a pretty solid approach; the presentation is quite convincing. I do find it hard to see what Biden will argue will change under his presidency ("mostly the same, but no Trump!") given that the fundamental policies are mostly the same. Trump can just hammer on the nontrivial personal weaknesses of Biden and brag about how good the economy is under his presidency. Hard to see how Biden in particular breaks through there.
|
I think Klobishar could be a bit of a kingmaker in this process If warren won't. If she endorses Bernie after Iowa that'll chop the knees off much of the criticism against him. If she endorses Biden she doesn't really get anything or matter much past leaving the election.
|
Bloombergs rise in the national democratic nominee poll is remarkable, seeing as he's ahead of both Yang and Buttigieg there now at 7.8%. How far does unlimited advertising power go?
|
On January 27 2020 07:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Bloombergs rise in the national democratic nominee poll is remarkable, seeing as he's ahead of both Yang and Buttigieg there now at 7.8%. How far does unlimited advertising power go?
Further than it took Steyer
|
On January 27 2020 07:11 Sermokala wrote:
I think Klobishar could be a bit of a kingmaker in this process If warren won't. If she endorses Bernie after Iowa that'll chop the knees off much of the criticism against him. If she endorses Biden she doesn't really get anything or matter much past leaving the election.
I guess Klobuchar could be a gatekeeper towards moderates accepting Sanders, in the same way that most other moderates (Biden, Clinton, Buttigieg, etc.) could help normalize a transition towards progressivism if they wanted to. I don't think they would though, unless Sanders beats Biden and wins the nomination (i.e., for the greater good of unity against Trump).
|
On January 27 2020 07:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Bloombergs rise in the national democratic nominee poll is remarkable, seeing as he's ahead of both Yang and Buttigieg there now at 7.8%. How far does unlimited advertising power go?
Very good question. I'm pretty sure it's too little too late for him, although I'd imagine that if he ends up stealing any support it'll be from fellow moderates (Buttigieg and, most importantly, Biden, which could help Sanders).
|
It certainly is an interesting question: what exactly is Bloomberg's core demographic? He isn't polling at any respectable level in Iowa or NH, but his national polling numbers are pretty high. For lack of better data, I'd assume he has a double-digit cult following in NY and CA, with some moderate single-digit support in a lot of other states?
On January 27 2020 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 07:11 Sermokala wrote:
I think Klobishar could be a bit of a kingmaker in this process If warren won't. If she endorses Bernie after Iowa that'll chop the knees off much of the criticism against him. If she endorses Biden she doesn't really get anything or matter much past leaving the election. I guess Klobuchar could be a gatekeeper towards moderates accepting Sanders, in the same way that most other moderates (Biden, Clinton, Buttigieg, etc.) could help normalize a transition towards progressivism if they wanted to. I don't think they would though, unless Sanders beats Biden and wins the nomination (i.e., for the greater good of unity against Trump).
Until and unless Sanders gets the nomination, the story most Dems are going to be telling is that:
1. Beating Trump is the key priority.
2. We can't choose someone too far left, or else they will alienate voters that are needed to beat Trump.
Notably, that entire narrative makes pretty much a "Sanders vs the world" story, and I don't really have a sense for how they translate that into a meaningful narrative for the general election.
|
Pretty much 100% chance that Bloomberg has his own type of Cambridge Analytica thing going on and using his giant ad presence to leverage the data he’s collecting.
|
On January 27 2020 09:37 Ryzel wrote:
Pretty much 100% chance that Bloomberg has his own type of Cambridge Analytica thing going on and using his giant ad presence to leverage the data he’s collecting.
What kind of data would that be, and how is he using it to leverage support? I haven't seen him really do anything against the other Democratic candidates. Or do you mean he'll have plenty of dirt on Trump when it comes time for the general election (which doesn't seem to matter to Trump's supporters anyway)?
|
On January 27 2020 09:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 09:37 Ryzel wrote:
Pretty much 100% chance that Bloomberg has his own type of Cambridge Analytica thing going on and using his giant ad presence to leverage the data he’s collecting. What kind of data would that be, and how is he using it to leverage support? I haven't seen him really do anything against the other Democratic candidates. Or do you mean he'll have plenty of dirt on Trump when it comes time for the general election (which doesn't seem to matter to Trump's supporters anyway)?
He's doing exactly what Cambridge Analytica did. Compiling data from a variety of sources to produce facebook like targeting of voters. Surely some people have no idea their data is being sold to Bloomberg's data operation but presumably he's not technically violating any laws in obtaining it.
|
On January 27 2020 07:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Bloombergs rise in the national democratic nominee poll is remarkable, seeing as he's ahead of both Yang and Buttigieg there now at 7.8%. How far does unlimited advertising power go?
Let's put it this way.
He won twice as a republican in my home city of NYC, the democratic citadel of America, and bypassed the 2 term limit rule by paying off/setting up its biggest supporters to win a third term. He did all this as a Bostonian - it's pretty much unheard of to win a mayoral election as an outsider to the NYC. He poured tons of his own money into his campaign to bypass pretty much all obstacles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
