EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 30
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46401 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:05 Danglars wrote: It's a three person race. The rest are longshots. I would not have predicted Biden collapsing in Iowa & NH. I did believe in a Klobuchar surge much much earlier, just given how nutty her moderate (moderate at least among candidates still in the running) rivals have conducted themselves on debates. Which three? Sanders, Buttigieg, and... ? Surely not Klobuchar? She's polling under 5% in both Nevada and South Carolina, according to RCP, and her minority support seems to be as low as Buttigieg's. Biden could still have a solid showing there. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
I did not believe we could see a primary that is an f-in 6 way race AFTER Iowa+NH. There were so many scenarios where it could have wound down to a 2 man race, yet non of those panned out. For example, about 4-5 months ago, I was convinced that Warren gonna cannibalize Bernie's votes (after his hearth attack), and she's gonna go head to head vs the establishment favorite Biden. OR, maybe Biden implodes under the weight of expectations and his own gaffes, and Pete pulls out a Bill Clinton style, from zero-to-hero ascension, the moderates flip to him quickly and then it's a 2 way race that way.... Instead, after 2 early states we have no less than 5 people with a number of delegates, Biden being an astonishing 5th among the bunch, but still having the 1st/2nd highest polling numbers nationwide. Let's recap: 1. Bernie - strong bounce-back after heart-attack, presumed new front-runner on the national scale. Yet his numbers arent that impressive in the early states, considering his vote-counts from 2016. Two "popular-vote" victories so far, which somehow ended up in him having 1 less delegate than... 2. Pete - his strategy of going allin on Iowa+NH and riding the wave of being the only young guy, (and kinda the only mid-western guy) worked out, though maybe not as well as he hoped, since Iowa got mangled up and even though he won the SDE-s, he lost the popular vote, so it became a little awkward, especially with that premature victory speech. Part of the media is hellbent on selling him as someone who cant get black/latino votes, Im not sure why, obviously his strategy was hinged on the early states, which are white as milk, so he didnt register for most of the southern voters etc. 3. Biden - he was so ahead in every single nation-wide poll, it was crazy. He flopped, and he flopped hard, yet he wont quit, he would be a fool to do it. He's still the nr 1 moderate nationwide, which could change, but let's not forget SC which has the most delegates from the early 4 is considered to be a lock for him. He's on a really bad streak as far as perception goes, but the numbers themselves arent bad for him. He's 16 delegates behind the frontrunners, that s nothing. SC is 54 delegates, and people under 15% get nothing, and as things stood a short while ago, he was leading by a lot, Bernie a distant second, and the rest well under the threshold. That s a potential 25-30 delegate swing right there. Bernie could certainly challenge him if he gains more momentum from Nevada, but the rest of the field kinda ignored the state, and are gonna get around 10% or under, unless Nevada is so bad for Biden, that his base actually turns on him. All he has to do, is avoid falling apart during/after Nevada, and win SC. Not only would he be back in the race, he would be leading the delegate count going into ST. Dont get me wrong, i really want Biden to fail, but he absolutely has a way to victory. 4. Warren is in a pretty bad shape, she lost momentum, failed to capitalize on Bernie's weakness, yet later she tried to go on the offensive, she kinda half-assed two seats and fell in the middle. Yet, she too, would be crazy to give up any time soon. She is the obvious 2nd choice after Bernie for many, and technically she is 3rd place candidate right now, so as long as the field is this divided, she can stay in, and hope for a bump down the road. Biden might implode for good, Pete with the momentum could be the moderate frontrunner, but no presence in most of the states that are coming down the road, so if something happens to Bernie, godforbid a more serious 2nd heartattack, she's looking good to take over as the progressive leader, and fight it out down the road. 5. Klobuchar, I chalked her up as an also-ran, her "above expectations" numbers from Iowa only got a shrug out of me, but she really over-performed in NH. In any other year a "strong" 5th and a strong 3rd would mean nothing, but this year? yeah, she s here to stay, praying for a complete implosion of Biden and some windfall during ST. Which could come. If Biden falls through the cracks, and Pete fails to build on his momentum, the "moderate leader" title is up for grabs. 6. Not only did Iowa+NH fail at trimming down the field, it absolutely paved the way for the unlikely strategy of Bloomberg to work. I mean if it really was down to a 2 or maybe 3 man race, Bloomberg would have 0 chance right now, no matter how much money he threw at ST states. I mean, say Bernie retired last year after his heart attack, and now it would be a 2 way tie between Warren and Biden or maybe a 3way between Warren-Biden-Pete. Or say it s horserace between Bernie and Biden, the rest bowing out after NH or Nevada. Where could he hope to gain so many votes to unseat the established candidates, who would already have a decent number of delegates and momentum, going into ST? Nowhere. It would have been a talking point at late-night shows how some billionaires are so rich, they can flush 2 billion down the toilet, just because.... But like this? with 5 people having delegates, 3 people still contesting to be the main establishment choice? Yeah, sure, why not? Could he win? No. Could he gain some pluralities in some states and then outlast the rest of the moderates who are starving for money, and unable to get more, since donors are unimpressed with them so far? Yeah, that could actually work. Could this be enough to lead to a contested convention with Bloomberg being, say 3rd in overall delegate numbers? yeah, it could. Jesus, imagine a contested convention, with Bernie in the lead with like 27%, and 3 establishment candidates coming in after him with ~20%ish. There would be blood. I mean i hope it doesnt come to this, but this whole thing is so wide open, crazy! | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Which three? Sanders, Buttigieg, and... ? Surely not Klobuchar? She's polling under 5% in both Nevada and South Carolina, according to RCP, and her minority support seems to be as low as Buttigieg's. Biden could still have a solid showing there. There's only been one Democratic presidential candidate who lost both New Hampshire and Iowa and went on to win the DNC primary. That's Bill Clinton (and he had awful case of running against a literal Iowa senator, which no candidate had this time). There's been zero DNC candidates who lost both and didn't even come in top 3 in either race. He had an awful time against an Iowa senator running for president, etc. So 40 years of history, just one fluke win, and no fluke win for a non-3-finish. Klobuchar is third and not too far behind. She has a decent shot to reap people swapping from Biden, and Warren (if identity politics/first woman president is your thing). Biden is low on cash and skipped campaign events to try and raise cash. His campaigning has been awful. His supporters are mainly moderates (relative to field) and electability vs Trump voters. That lane is very packed at the moment. He would literally need competitive candidates to drop out and endorse him after his best polled states, which is incredibly unlikely to happen. I predict, despite possible good finishes in Nevada and SC (and south in general), he will bleed support to better run campaigns that are leading in states containing HUGE delegate totals. Which isn't to say Klobuchar is an obvious third competitor, but she has a much better chance than Biden to go from third to the convention nominee, should she be unseated. For additional reading, see: Why Joe Biden's Campaign is collapsing Look at the trendline of the green DNC LV Biden polling (even set it to 30 days) compared to even Bloomberg EDIT: Superdelegates are stupid, but I don't have a good read on the ideological splitting between establishment loyalties and who-looks-electable-right-now. Link me news stories. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On February 13 2020 02:20 Danglars wrote: There's only been one Democratic presidential candidate who lost both New Hampshire and Iowa and went on to win the DNC primary. That's Bill Clinton (and he had awful case of running against a literal Iowa senator, which no candidate had this time). There's been zero DNC candidates who lost both and didn't even come in top 3 in either race. He had an awful time against an Iowa senator running for president, etc. So 40 years of history, just one fluke win, and no fluke win for a non-3-finish. . to be fair, while Bill didnt win NH, he did get the same nr of delegates as the winner did iirc, so that "loss" (tie, really) actually propelled him forward, and since people shrugged off Iowa anyways, there wasnt anyone running away with it, so from a historical standppoint, yeah, Biden is dead in the water... BUT, history is not necessarily a good indicator when it comes to a year like this one, and a political climate like this one | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 13 2020 03:01 Geo.Rion wrote: to be fair, while Bill didnt win NH, he did get the same nr of delegates as the winner did iirc, so that "loss" (tie, really) actually propelled him forward, and since people shrugged off Iowa anyways, there wasnt anyone running away with it, so from a historical standppoint, yeah, Biden is dead in the water... BUT, history is not necessarily a good indicator when it comes to a year like this one, and a political climate like this one I agree with you about history not being a good indicator ... if people make broad generalizations based on history. But I haven't really seen a good argument for why 40-year history isn't reliable and it happens to not be reliable to Biden's advantage. A general electorate willingness to vote for the democratic candidate, ANY democratic candidate doesn't help Biden. The other candidates do just fine head-to-head against Trump in the polling. Nobody's seriously making the case that Biden is the only one who can defeat Trump, ergo he has a chance of pulling high numbers of later support. In fact, this year's unique aspects hurt Biden. Democrats don't even feel like they need the top ultra-appeal to bring voters out to beat Trump. They're all-in for unifying behind the ultimate nominee. 33%-42% popular vote loss in New Hampshire was big for Clinton, despite eventually tying the delegates. That happens because there was so few delegates to distribute or split. The popular vote affects the coalescing around top-2 and conditionally top-3 prospects, not the delegate counts in small states. Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire in the metric that mattered, and Biden's campaign is hoping that he'll be first to lose both states and not come in top-3 in both states, and still be the nominee. (And if anyone else wants to argue ties based on delegates not popular vote for means of viability, here's your reminder that Clinton lost the delegate count 0 to 49 in Iowa in '92  He got identical the number of delegates as dead last. Delegates in small states aren't what you look at, doubly true with Iowa's idiocy this year). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
This isn’t the Republican primary thread, so all I can say is Trump’s historic election had at least 30 years of broken GOP promises and sellouts on immigration and trade. Trump stands on the shoulders of Buchanan and Perot ... Biden would have to be Jimmy Carter minus actually winning first primaries. Moderate establishment candidates aren’t the trend-buckers when they start at heavy disadvantage. You’d be right if we had someone here suggesting Democratic socialized medicine policies of the past 40 years said something about today. Not that anyone would be that silly. Big Biden fans are hoping for quick dropouts and Biden endorsements and less underperforming polls in southern states and a re-energized campaign. Maybe a little less calling undecided voters “lying dog-faced pony soldier” too. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
What's more telling is that he wasn't slated to do this bad in Iowa or NH. In Iowa, he was more or less neck-and-neck with Sanders as the frontrunner, and he had a respectable #2 slot in NH. The fact that he did worse suggests that he is likely to underperform in more places, and that's not even keeping in mind the impact from the story of getting slaughtered in two states in a row. I'm sure Biden will do well in states like South Carolina. But if Iowa is an unexpected blowout loss, why would the later states somehow play in his favor? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On February 13 2020 19:21 Simberto wrote: Can we not do the Trump-style childish nicknames? I was kinda looking forward to "butti bros" being a thing | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Sleepy joe and pocahontas they stand no change in a general election. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On February 13 2020 09:04 LegalLord wrote: In the "moderate lane," what Biden does have going for him is the fact that he has the best name recognition and the broadest base of support. While Buttman has done significantly better in Iowa and NH, it seems like that won't translate into any of the later states. Biden still has his originally quite strong base of support in those states left in his favor. What's more telling is that he wasn't slated to do this bad in Iowa or NH. In Iowa, he was more or less neck-and-neck with Sanders as the frontrunner, and he had a respectable #2 slot in NH. The fact that he did worse suggests that he is likely to underperform in more places, and that's not even keeping in mind the impact from the story of getting slaughtered in two states in a row. I'm sure Biden will do well in states like South Carolina. But if Iowa is an unexpected blowout loss, why would the later states somehow play in his favor? I agree that Biden has performed very poorly so far. It seems to me that he has to do well in South Carolina or else he is probably not going to win. It's funny that Bloomberg, who didn't even participate in the first 2 contests, appears to be gaining some support from people giving up on Biden. At the time, I thought Bloomberg not participating in some of the early primaries was an odd decision, but it was a smart one in hindsight because for many people, it looks worse to lose while trying than to not even try.. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On February 14 2020 00:48 Anc13nt wrote: I agree that Biden has performed very poorly so far. It seems to me that he has to do well in South Carolina or else he is probably not going to win. It's funny that Bloomberg, who didn't even participate in the first 2 contests, appears to be gaining some support from people giving up on Biden. At the time, I thought Bloomberg not participating in some of the early primaries was an odd decision, but it was a smart one in hindsight because for many people, it looks worse to lose while trying than to not even try.. Reason why the strategy works for Bloomberg is that he didn't have to raise a dime to advertise/organize in every other state. It isn't particularly clever (Super Tuesday is a much bigger contest with much less competition), just an inaccessible strategy for most. Would probably still be a stretch if there wasn't a fight for who gets to be the "anyone but Bernie" candidate. It wouldn't have worked in 2016 for example. | ||
|
Day_Walker
104 Posts
On February 13 2020 22:06 NewSunshine wrote: Yeah. I have no love for Pete, never did, and Iowa didn't help that, but we can talk about him without resorting to a homophobic zinger. Yes, we should use an economic zinger instead: "Wall Street Pete". It's a good one because the content is political instead of personal, answering the key question "Which side are you on?" And it rhymes, and you can chant it. Better in every way | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 13 2020 22:06 NewSunshine wrote: Yeah. I have no love for Pete, never did, and Iowa didn't help that, but we can talk about him without resorting to a homophobic zinger. I have been wondering if Trump will be completely homophobic or actually be a bit sly about it if Pete would win the nomination. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 14 2020 01:39 semantics wrote: I have been wondering if Trump will be completely homophobic or actually be a bit sly about it if Pete would win the nomination. Neither is out of character for him, but I would definitely expect the "now I wouldn't say bad things about him being gay, but if you want to know what I'd say, this is what I'd say" approach. The barest minimum attempt at plausible deniability, which is enough to get his supporters to buy it, while they simultaneously take it as the call for harassment that it is. We've seen it enough times already. | ||
| ||
