Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415
Results 421 to 445 of 445

Thread: Democrat 2020

  1. #421

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    But the superdelegates have to vote after the first round. So even if the pledged delegates coalesce after the first round, the impression will be based around how the superdelegates voted.
    If a non-Sanders majority of pledged delegates is delivered to a non-Sanders candidate, then that candidate wins outright - no unpledged delegates involved.

    Guys, there's like a minimal chance of a convention decided by superdelegates, and an even more minimal chance that the latter would disregard a strong Sanders plurality. What's minimal-squared? Infinitesimal?

    Focus on other things.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  2. #422
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    But the superdelegates have to vote after the first round. So even if the pledged delegates coalesce after the first round, the impression will be based around how the superdelegates voted.
    Precisely this. When the rules around superdelegates changed after 2016, I dont think the DNC thought a situation like this would happen. Personally I think they should have had the superdelegates vote in the 3rd round to avoid any conspiracy theories.

    If the superdelegates vote for Bloomberg, I am almost positive that the election is lost. People will be very mad that a billionaire seemingly bought the nomination and the base will be demoralized along with fresh conspiracy theories. After all, if Bloomberg can poach campaign staff and spend lavishly, who says he couldnt buy superdelegates? Or so the conspiracy theory will go along those lines. It will be 2016 but worse.

    I really really hope that Bloomberg gets pummeled in the debate.

    On a side note, I dont have high hopes for Sanders either. I think he would lose against Trump à la Corbyn. As Ive said before, Sanders would turn the election from a referendum on Trump to a referendum on socialism. Yes, every Dem candidate has been accused of being socialist, and the American voter is dumb, but for Sanders its a bit harder to defend when he was recorded on camera saying that he was happy when Castro took over Cuba for example. The ads write themselves. Why do you think so many Republicans are pushing for Sanders? When you have right-wing talk show hosts telling their listeners in open primary states to go vote for Sanders, I think its obvious why. Sanders is a change candidate, and for a lot of Americans, things arent so bad. Yes, the rule of law is collapsing, the guardrails to our democracy are in grave danger if not dismantled, but a lot of Americans sadly dont care that much about that. Its a pretty stable economy which always bodes very well for the incumbent, even more so since a Sanders candidacy would be promising fundamental change and the average American is scared of that.

    Let me be clear though, I'll still vote for him in the general, I just dont have high hopes for him. Frankly I dont have high hopes for anyone on that debate stage tonight.

    Also Monty, you make an excellent point about predictive values.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  3. #423

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    If the superdelegates vote for Bloomberg, I am almost positive that the election is lost.
    In what world does this happen?!?!?! I can't believe you guys are as paranoid about the convention as "Bernie Bros."

    Yes, every Dem candidate has been accused of being socialist, and the American voter is dumb, but for Sanders its a bit harder to defend when he was recorded on camera saying that he was happy when Castro took over Cuba for example.
    Here's how it goes down:

    GOP: Venezuela Cuba communism!
    Sanders: I believe in a fair deal for working families.
    GOP: He was a 60s hippie! Soviet honeymoon!
    Sanders: I believe in economic justice, social justice, racial justice, and environmental justice. I believe America should have a foreign policy that works to keep us safe and spread our values, not create conflicts for the profit of a few.
    Voters: Gotta love an outsider.

    It is what it is, but it works in our favor so I won't complain too much. The polling so far bears it out.

    I think Sanders' true untapped vulnerabilities are personal: his ethnicity, his religion (or lack thereof), and maybe his family.

    Why do you think so many Republicans are pushing for Sanders?
    Didn't many Democrats push for Trump in the 2016 primaries? No one actually does strategic cross-party voting in open primaries, not in numbers. They would have to skip their own party's primary, of course.

    Sanders is a change candidate, and for a lot of Americans, things arent so bad.
    Have you seen the recent polling that nonvoters in swing states favor a candidate that will "fundamentally change" the country?

    Its a pretty stable economy which always bodes very well for the incumbent, even more so since a Sanders candidacy would be promising fundamental change and the average American is scared of that.
    It hasn't done much for Trump's popularity. Seriously, Trump in an unpopular criminal who got lucky against an opponent with massive institutional forces arrayed against her. If you want to be pessimistic then realize that Trump is probably going to have Barr declare an investigation into the nominee as soon as they are selected.


    Sanders has been leading in 10/10 national polls this week, and has had a Nevada strategy of emphasizing early voting - early voting turnout now matches total 2016 turnout in Nevada. Take heart.


    I hear that Warren is emasculating Bloomberg on stage as we speak.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #424
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,301
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Hoo boy, your children will be asking "where were you when warren buried a hatchett between bloomberg's shoulder blades?"

    Watching the primaries finally paid off in 3 minutes of late night television.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-20-2020 at 04:13.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  5. #425
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,054

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Republicans have portrayed Democrats as socialists for a century. Thankfully or not, voters don't tend to be educated enough to wonder why Sanders sounds like a thorough social democrat of the old school.
    Most of them, at least from 1932 on. Pretty much all of them from 1968 onwards.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  6. #426
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In what world does this happen?!?!?! I can't believe you guys are as paranoid about the convention as "Bernie Bros."
    The key word was if. I hope it doesn't, but considering that Bloomberg is currently polling in third, is it that hard to believe?

    Here's how it goes down:

    GOP: Venezuela Cuba communism!
    Sanders: I believe in a fair deal for working families.
    GOP: He was a 60s hippie! Soviet honeymoon!
    Sanders: I believe in economic justice, social justice, racial justice, and environmental justice. I believe America should have a foreign policy that works to keep us safe and spread our values, not create conflicts for the profit of a few.
    Voters: Gotta love an outsider.

    It is what it is, but it works in our favor so I won't complain too much. The polling so far bears it out.

    I think Sanders' true untapped vulnerabilities are personal: his ethnicity, his religion (or lack thereof), and maybe his family.
    Oh come on, you know the attacks will be more sophisticated. If anything, the GOP is excellent at running elections. They know what buttons to push to get their guy elected where it counts.

    A poll released today showed that 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of socialism, with only 28% favorable. I think it is more of an issue than you think. That same poll shows that 51% believe Trump is handling the economy well. 66% say that the economy is working well for them personally. This bodes very poorly for Sanders and very well for Trump.

    Again, its true that the GOP calls everything socialist. But do you really not see the added vulnerability when a candidate is on video praising Castro, among other things? Like the Maduro thing which is recent. Narratives matter. In 2016 the narrative was that Hillary was corrupt. Now that corrupt narrative has been unleased against Biden. For Bernie, it would be that he's a communist. I'm not saying I agree, but that is what will be blasted over the airwaves constantly until the election.

    Didn't many Democrats push for Trump in the 2016 primaries? No one actually does strategic cross-party voting in open primaries, not in numbers. They would have to skip their own party's primary, of course.
    2016 was different as both parties had primaries so strategic cross-party voting was much more rare. Now, Im not so sure. Will it happen? I dont know. Hopefully not. But the point still stands: the GOP thinks Sanders is an easy opponent. Did Dems want Trump as the opponent in 2016? Yes. Were they wrong to think Trump would be an easy person to beat? Yes. Does it mean that just because the opponent thinks someone is weak that the "weak" candidate will win? Of course not.

    Have you seen the recent polling that nonvoters in swing states favor a candidate that will "fundamentally change" the country?
    Ah yes, nonvoters, that reliable voting bloc lol. Relying on them would be a serious gamble. And did that poll say that Sanders was that candidate of fundamental change? Perhaps for many of those nonvoters Trump is that person.

    It hasn't done much for Trump's popularity. Seriously, Trump in an unpopular criminal who got lucky against an opponent with massive institutional forces arrayed against her. If you want to be pessimistic then realize that Trump is probably going to have Barr declare an investigation into the nominee as soon as they are selected.

    Sanders has been leading in 10/10 national polls this week, and has had a Nevada strategy of emphasizing early voting - early voting turnout now matches total 2016 turnout in Nevada. Take heart.
    Trump is currently at a 46% approval rating. I think people are more okay with him than we would like to imagine.

    I hear that Warren is emasculating Bloomberg on stage as we speak.
    Yes and it is delicious.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 02-20-2020 at 05:30.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  7. #427

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    Oh come on, you know the attacks will be more sophisticated. If anything, the GOP is excellent at running elections. They know what buttons to push to get their guy elected where it counts.

    A poll released today showed that 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of socialism, with only 28% favorable. I think it is more of an issue than you think. That same poll shows that 51% believe Trump is handling the economy well. 66% say that the economy is working well for them personally. This bodes very poorly for Sanders and very well for Trump.
    I expect we'll find a lot of this stuff is baked in. If you attack Sanders over some construction of "socialism" before voters who aren't technically-minded about ideologies, it just plays into Sanders' brand as an "authentic" truthteller and contrarian who says common-sensical things.

    The electorate is familiar with Sanders by now, at least superficially. They've heard that he's a socialist before. Why would it make a big impact now, especially once the conflict is clarified to a one-on-one between him and Trump? It's possible, but I'm not worried.

    Like the Maduro thing which is recent. Narratives matter.
    What's that? When he called Maduro a dictator?

    In 2016 the narrative was that Hillary was corrupt. Now that corrupt narrative has been unleased against Biden. For Bernie, it would be that he's a communist. I'm not saying I agree, but that is what will be blasted over the airwaves constantly until the election.
    The Hillary corruption narrative had been cultivated by the entire right wing media and political machines for 25 years before that election. They hit her in the weak spot they had engineered. As I point out above, "socialism" for Sanders is almost like an opposite valence.

    Biden's vulnerability is that he doesn't seem - and probably isn't - put together. It would be easy in abstract to turn the Ukraine smear against Trump as a crime against the republic that Trump was impeached over. But Biden isn't that kind of candidate. But that's moot now.

    Does it mean that just because the opponent thinks someone is weak that the "weak" candidate will win? Of course not.
    Right, and it doesn't mean the opposite. Look at the fundamentals, which include polarization and at least half the population who hate Trump. Any old Democrat has a good shot on paper. The real danger is in the ratfucking that you know is coming.

    Ah yes, nonvoters, that reliable voting bloc lol. Relying on them would be a serious gamble. And did that poll say that Sanders was that candidate of fundamental change? Perhaps for many of those nonvoters Trump is that person.
    It's part of a study purporting that nonvoters in swing states may be friendlier to Republicans to Democrats, so turning out more voters would in that case backfire. Though the findings are weakened by the high rates of "Other" or IDK responses. The implication is supposed to be that nonvoters tend to dislike the parties and like perceived outsiders (e.g. Trump and Sanders).


    Trump is currently at a 46% approval rating. I think people are more okay with him than we would like to imagine.
    Obviously he's more popular than we like, that's not the same thing as having the advantage.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-20-2020 at 05:50.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #428
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,440
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Guys, there's like a minimal chance of a convention decided by superdelegates, and an even more minimal chance that the latter would disregard a strong Sanders plurality. What's minimal-squared? Infinitesimal?
    Every candidate (except Bernie) on stage literally said the person with the most votes should not be declared the winner if they don't have a majority.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  9. #429

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Every candidate (except Bernie) on stage literally said the person with the most votes should not be declared the winner if they don't have a majority.
    If the non-Bernies have a clear majority, they will consolidate around one of their own at the convention. Has nothing to do with superdelegates.


    Like, if Sanders has 40% of delegates, Bloomberg 20%, and the rest 40%, then they'll shift them around to Klobuchar or something.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-20-2020 at 05:54.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #430
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I expect we'll find a lot of this stuff is baked in. If you attack Sanders over some construction of "socialism" before voters who aren't technically-minded about ideologies, it just plays into Sanders' brand as an "authentic" truthteller and contrarian who says common-sensical things.

    The electorate is familiar with Sanders by now, at least superficially. They've heard that he's a socialist before. Why would it make a big impact now, especially once the conflict is clarified to a one-on-one between him and Trump? It's possible, but I'm not worried.
    The electorate might be familiar with Sanders, but they never had to decide on whether or not to vote for him outside of Vermont or primaries. I wish I had as much faith in you that the electorate will overlook it in a general election.

    What's that? When he called Maduro a dictator?
    When you have headlines like this, it can be harder to spin it away. Again, it feeds into the narrative.

    The Hillary corruption narrative had been cultivated by the entire right wing media and political machines for 25 years before that election. They hit her in the weak spot they had engineered. As I point out above, "socialism" for Sanders is almost like an opposite valence.
    To you, maybe.

    Right, and it doesn't mean the opposite. Look at the fundamentals, which include polarization and at least half the population who hate Trump. Any old Democrat has a good shot on paper. The real danger is in the ratfucking that you know is coming.
    Ok, and I agree there will be a lot of shenanigans going on. But that doesnt refute my main point if an opponent seems to really want a certain person to run, it pays to try to figure out why.

    It's part of a study purporting that nonvoters in swing states may be friendlier to Republicans to Democrats, so turning out more voters would in that case backfire. Though the findings are weakened by the high rates of "Other" or IDK responses. The implication is supposed to be that nonvoters tend to dislike the parties and like perceived outsiders (e.g. Trump and Sanders).
    But would they vote? Seems like a hell of a gamble to me.

    Obviously he's more popular than we like, that's not the same thing as having the advantage.
    Both GWB and Obama were at around the same percentage at this point in the race. Barring some gigantic scandal (well, more than impeachment anyways), I think he has just as strong of an incumbent advantage as his predecessors did. Combine that with voters having a pretty good outlook on the economy, Id say more voters are sadly likely willing to overlook the whole corrupt wannabe dictator thing.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  11. #431
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,835

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    National polls clearly indicated there's only one who has more possible votes in the final election - Sanders.

    And let's be honest here, with Bloomberg suddenly polling at 19% out of the blue, it's really not unreasonable to expect the DNC will switch to someone more moderate. Hooah is right - America dislikes any mention of socialism, even if they like Bernie. At this rate, I would honestly expect the next ones to drop out would be Liz and Klobuchar.

    This leaves the DNC with 3 guys who are nearly 80 and a young Army veteran who will not poll well in the conservative South because he's gay.
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to: :

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  12. #432
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    771

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    The Cuban Revolution is generally viewed positively pretty much everywhere, except for the land of the sponsors of the previous regime. America has a huge problem with chauvinism, even among self-described liberals. I just read rant from a conservative-hating Democrat calling for sanctioning Russia to oblivion and intervening for an independent Chechnya. Rambles like these approach Ann Coulter levels of insanity. Although I personally don't like Sanders much, his candidacy might be on the long term a useful way to gradually reject some of the most extreme Cold War taboos.

  13. #433
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,368

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    The Cuban Revolution is generally viewed positively pretty much everywhere, except for the land of the sponsors of the previous regime. America has a huge problem with chauvinism, even among self-described liberals. I just read rant from a conservative-hating Democrat calling for sanctioning Russia to oblivion and intervening for an independent Chechnya. Rambles like these approach Ann Coulter levels of insanity. Although I personally don't like Sanders much, his candidacy might be on the long term a useful way to gradually reject some of the most extreme Cold War taboos.
    That's not really true - most of Northern Europe, the Anglosphere etc. view the Cuban revolutions negatively - it's not an exclusively American view. that's not to say the previous regime was seen as positive but Castro was still a fairly brutal communist dictator.

    I imagine he's viewed more favourably in South America and parts of Southern Europe but there's no accounting for taste.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  14. #434
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,368

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    The electorate might be familiar with Sanders, but they never had to decide on whether or not to vote for him outside of Vermont or primaries. I wish I had as much faith in you that the electorate will overlook it in a general election.


    When you have headlines like this, it can be harder to spin it away. Again, it feeds into the narrative.


    To you, maybe.


    Ok, and I agree there will be a lot of shenanigans going on. But that doesnt refute my main point if an opponent seems to really want a certain person to run, it pays to try to figure out why.


    But would they vote? Seems like a hell of a gamble to me.


    Both GWB and Obama were at around the same percentage at this point in the race. Barring some gigantic scandal (well, more than impeachment anyways), I think he has just as strong of an incumbent advantage as his predecessors did. Combine that with voters having a pretty good outlook on the economy, Id say more voters are sadly likely willing to overlook the whole corrupt wannabe dictator thing.
    I'd say that Sanders is enough of an actual Socialist, as opposed to a Social Democrat, that more moderate educated voters will not vote for him - comparison to Corbyn as you say. Sanders is on mic saying things like "I supported Castro" and "I don't trust markets" and these sentiments are fundamentally un-American.

    If Sanders plans on defeating Trump he needs to shift to an achievable Social Democrat platform that would actually benefit America rather than trying to push a Socialist platform that will crash and burn - that means no telling companies what percentage of stocks and shares they have to give to employees.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/186430...ownership-jobs

    Note that this plan has failed in both my homeland and mit fosterland. Owning your own business is central to the American dream - forcing you to give your business to your employees is anathema to it. That's not to say there's anything wrong with co-operatives, but the key word here is ​forcing.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  15. #435

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    The electorate might be familiar with Sanders, but they never had to decide on whether or not to vote for him outside of Vermont or primaries. I wish I had as much faith in you that the electorate will overlook it in a general election.

    When you have headlines like this, it can be harder to spin it away. Again, it feeds into the narrative
    I'm sorry, he called him a "vicious tyrant" and repeatedly condemned him.

    I think you have an outdated view, as well as a depersonalized one, of what kind of attacks will stick to what kind of candidates. Negative partisanship is a very strong force today.

    To you, maybe.
    Even people who hate Sanders repeatedly report finding his "authenticity" admirable. Again, it is what it is. I'm just trying to describe the state of affairs. If Joe Walsh and Mike Bloomberg can choose Sanders over Trump then I'm sure almost every voting Democrat will.

    But would they vote? Seems like a hell of a gamble to me.
    Let's take the argument implied by the article, which can be assessed and criticized - but I just want to describe it. It is contributing evidence that in some swing states (habitual) nonvoters may lean more Republican, or at least Trumpian, than toward Democrats, and that this may be related to the same cohort's antiestablishmentarian and 'shake things up' attitudes. It is well-known that Democrats, both as a matter of principle and political strategy, promote voter registration and participation and oppose vote-suppressing policies. If it is correct that in a certain state nonvoters are net Republican-leaning, then increasing their turnout in the general would be a net negative for Democrats. On the other hand, given the characteristics of the nonvoting cohort, the contrarian Bernie "political revolution" Sanders might be expected to be more appealing to them than other Democratic candidates would be.

    So what it amounts to is an argument for the above-replacement electability of Sanders in swing states. I don't fully buy it - across the states ~1/3 of respondents have no preference between parties or don't know, and I doubt if you forced them all to vote they would vote 3rd party 10X the general rate - but it is food for thought. Average Democrats will turn out against Trump as long as they're not outright demoralized by the nominee, and if the nominee is good with weak leaners or nonvoters then that's a bonus.

    Both GWB and Obama were at around the same percentage at this point in the race. Barring some gigantic scandal (well, more than impeachment anyways), I think he has just as strong of an incumbent advantage as his predecessors did. Combine that with voters having a pretty good outlook on the economy, Id say more voters are sadly likely willing to overlook the whole corrupt wannabe dictator thing.
    Here's the thing - the incumbent advantage has been observed to be continually weakening, and the difference between Trump's current polling and his most recent minimum in late October is 3 or 4 points. As always, to win reelection he has to perform at least as well in a specific set of states as he did in 2016. If his polling is running very high in October then we have a problem, but there's no ground for preemptive pessimism. To paraphrase someone, Sanders (if nominated) is on course to handle Trump fairly comfortably barring him suffering another heart attack on stage during the general and subsequently confessing his admiration for Stalin's 1930s policies. Your concerns can't be conclusively dissolved but they are weaker than you hold them to be. You shouldn't be complacent but you shouldn't stress yourself with misdirected anxiety.

    Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
    National polls clearly indicated there's only one who has more possible votes in the final election - Sanders.

    And let's be honest here, with Bloomberg suddenly polling at 19% out of the blue, it's really not unreasonable to expect the DNC will switch to someone more moderate. Hooah is right - America dislikes any mention of socialism, even if they like Bernie. At this rate, I would honestly expect the next ones to drop out would be Liz and Klobuchar.

    This leaves the DNC with 3 guys who are nearly 80 and a young Army veteran who will not poll well in the conservative South because he's gay.
    If the DNC were somehow to award the candidacy to someone other than Sanders then they would not be restricted to any of the contenders. If everyone other than Sanders concedes and releases their delegates from their pledges they could theoretically nominate Hillary Clinton or Al Gore if it were worked out that way. But it's not going to happen.

    Expect Bloomberg to be a paper tiger just like Biden. We should have learned from Warren that a rapid surge built on soft support from squishy moderates is not a guarantee of lasting dominance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    The Cuban Revolution is generally viewed positively pretty much everywhere, except for the land of the sponsors of the previous regime. America has a huge problem with chauvinism, even among self-described liberals. I just read rant from a conservative-hating Democrat calling for sanctioning Russia to oblivion and intervening for an independent Chechnya. Rambles like these approach Ann Coulter levels of insanity. Although I personally don't like Sanders much, his candidacy might be on the long term a useful way to gradually reject some of the most extreme Cold War taboos.
    Sanctioning Russia and an independent Chechnya is not exactly chauvinism. I'd be interested to see international polling on the Cuban Revolution though, I can't find any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I'd say that Sanders is enough of an actual Socialist, as opposed to a Social Democrat, that more moderate educated voters will not vote for him - comparison to Corbyn as you say. Sanders is on mic saying things like "I supported Castro" and "I don't trust markets" and these sentiments are fundamentally un-American.
    Corbyn comparisons are lazy and uninformed, and the "un-American" take is even worse, but to claim Sanders is on mic saying he supported Castro and doesn't trust markets, in the face of him saying the opposite on multiple occasions, requires some evidence. (And for the former, pointing out the increase in living standards in Cuba and opposing a coup is not tantamount to praising Castro.)

    Note that this plan has failed in both my homeland and mit fosterland.
    That is incorrect.

    Owning your own business is central to the American dream - forcing you to give your business to your employees is anathema to it.
    Phil, can you at least try?

    Large companies with public stock offerings managed by board-selected executive officers are not equivalent to self-employed small business owners.

    That's not to say there's anything wrong with co-operatives, but the key word here is ​forcing.
    Do you have a problem with companies being forced to pay wages? If not, why not? What is the crucial distinction?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-21-2020 at 02:35.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  16. #436
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,054

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    I think Monty is correct as to those who self-identify as Dems. The large bulk of those on the moderate wing may not love a nominee Sanders, but they'll pull the lever FOR him rather than aid Trump by voting third party in protest. Even Dem moderates do not view Trump as 'just another GOP type.' The issue will be among those of our "mugwumps," especially in the swing states, who are always the last to make up their minds and likely to react to the mood of the moment as the campaign finishes in late October.

    Unlike Monty, I am not quite ready to write Bloomberg out of the story. Deep pockets and huge media buys may yet give him the tools -- but he has NOT instantly eclipsed the other moderates and, so far, it seems to be Sanders who is picking up the most steam from Bloomberg's foray.

    And yes, Monty, I am one of those with a dash of personal respect for Sanders. I disagree with most of his policy initiatives and his political philosophy, but he has, pretty consistently, stated that he was and is a proponent of democratic socialism and put that to the fore in a country that is NOT traditionally receptive to same. Kudos for his honesty at least.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  17. #437

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    The issue will be among those of our "mugwumps," especially in the swing states, who are always the last to make up their minds and likely to react to the mood of the moment as the campaign finishes in late October.
    Everything I have read about late undecided voters (and they are not a large or wide demographic) affirms that they tend to be disengaged, uninformed, antagonistic toward the institutional parties, and politically/ideologically incoherent. There is probably no identifiable targeted way to pander to such a diverse and inconsistent group, and arguably politicians shouldn't try.

    Here is a fine representation of an archetypical such (at least as often non)voter.

    https://twitter.com/LRonMexico/statu...53743912697856

    To build off what I was saying earlier about a Sanders nomination, with many such you may enjoy a favorable reaction to Sanders' contrarian image, or alternatively even an effect like 'Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't extreme left like the Democrat Party.' Who knows, but don't go down the garden path too far thinking about it.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  18. #438

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Real-life example of the kind of Undecideds we're talking about:

    Hard to overstate how unpredictable talking to voters can be: Melissa from Algona, Iowa, caucused for Bernie in 2016, then voted for a Trump; she supports Medicare for All but supports Buttigieg, but will likely vote for Trump again if Buttigieg doesn’t win the Dem nomination.
    The common clay of the new West.


    Anyway, polling in Nevada a day out suggests a distinct possibility of Sanders and Warren winning a majority of votes and/or delegates. Hopefully they don't muck up the tabulation and reporting again.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  19. #439
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    10,835

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    How do you caucus and work for Sanders' campaign and then support Medicare for All but vote for Buttigieg, who is not in favour of it?

    ...?
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to: :

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country.

  20. #440
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,054

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
    How do you caucus and work for Sanders' campaign and then support Medicare for All but vote for Buttigieg, who is not in favour of it?

    ...?
    That was, more or less, his point. This will be a very close election and folks like the ones in his example are part of that wedge of mugwumps (want to be on both sides of all issues, never want to be 'wrong' so they always have their mug (face) on one side of the fence and their wump (butt) hanging over the other side) won't commit until the last moment and in many cases do so based on the mood of the moment. With an election this close, they may well decide the closest states with their "informed" voting.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  21. #441
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I'm sorry, he called him a "vicious tyrant" and repeatedly condemned him.

    I think you have an outdated view, as well as a depersonalized one, of what kind of attacks will stick to what kind of candidates. Negative partisanship is a very strong force today.

    Even people who hate Sanders repeatedly report finding his "authenticity" admirable. Again, it is what it is. I'm just trying to describe the state of affairs. If Joe Walsh and Mike Bloomberg can choose Sanders over Trump then I'm sure almost every voting Democrat will.
    I know, but Ive also been paying attention to how the news cycles go and what goes into attack ads. I hope you are right, Im just shaky in my confidence.

    This is anecdotal of course, but my parents are never-Trumpers who voted for Mcmuffin in 2016 and said they would vote for a Biden or a Klobuchar but not Bernie. That is what worries me. I think there is a large group of voters who learn right, hate Trump but are worried that Sanders is too much to the left so they would vote third party. Just looking at 2018 gives me more worry- not a single Bernie-aligned Dem flipped a House seat, while the more moderate candidates did all of the flipping. I cannot see how that bodes well for Bernie.


    Let's take the argument implied by the article, which can be assessed and criticized - but I just want to describe it. It is contributing evidence that in some swing states (habitual) nonvoters may lean more Republican, or at least Trumpian, than toward Democrats, and that this may be related to the same cohort's antiestablishmentarian and 'shake things up' attitudes. It is well-known that Democrats, both as a matter of principle and political strategy, promote voter registration and participation and oppose vote-suppressing policies. If it is correct that in a certain state nonvoters are net Republican-leaning, then increasing their turnout in the general would be a net negative for Democrats. On the other hand, given the characteristics of the nonvoting cohort, the contrarian Bernie "political revolution" Sanders might be expected to be more appealing to them than other Democratic candidates would be.

    So what it amounts to is an argument for the above-replacement electability of Sanders in swing states. I don't fully buy it - across the states ~1/3 of respondents have no preference between parties or don't know, and I doubt if you forced them all to vote they would vote 3rd party 10X the general rate - but it is food for thought. Average Democrats will turn out against Trump as long as they're not outright demoralized by the nominee, and if the nominee is good with weak leaners or nonvoters then that's a bonus.
    I really hope you are right. Honestly.


    Here's the thing - the incumbent advantage has been observed to be continually weakening, and the difference between Trump's current polling and his most recent minimum in late October is 3 or 4 points. As always, to win reelection he has to perform at least as well in a specific set of states as he did in 2016. If his polling is running very high in October then we have a problem, but there's no ground for preemptive pessimism. To paraphrase someone, Sanders (if nominated) is on course to handle Trump fairly comfortably barring him suffering another heart attack on stage during the general and subsequently confessing his admiration for Stalin's 1930s policies. Your concerns can't be conclusively dissolved but they are weaker than you hold them to be. You shouldn't be complacent but you shouldn't stress yourself with misdirected anxiety.
    Again, I hope you are right.

    Especially since Bernie did really well in Nevada. At the time of this post, he has about 46% of the caucus results which is honestly excellent for him. Biden came in second with 23%. Pete is 3rd with 13% and Warren with 8%. Steyer and Klobuchar should drop out now I think. Steyer, who outspent everyone else in Nevada, only has 3.5% to show for it and Klobuchar has 3.4%. I dont know why they are still bothering except for ego. I mean if Klob stayed in I'd kinda understand since she did kinda well in NH but Steyer? Dude needs to take a hint.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  22. #442
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    On a side note, this article from last week about the demographic most vital to a Trump defeat:

    Much ado about black voters

    Things are about to get interesting, and the squabble over black voters has begun, often without talking to anyone who is black. Black voters are a hot commodity to be analyzed, pandered to, wooed, deconstructed, and, from my perspective as a cultural anthropologist, still not understood. The adherents of candidates who are parachuting into the ‘hood, often never or rarely seen before by any of us, are ramping up the excuses and/or pointing fingers.

    The blame game for why black voters aren’t showing candidate X more love in the polls was already underway, before Iowa and New Hampshire: We aren’t progressive. We are low-information voters. We can be bought. We are homophobic. We are in red states so why should we have an outsized influence on the eventual nomination, especially because we are only 14% of the U.S. population?
    To follow, this article is also well worth a read:

    They Rocked New Hampshire—but Pete and Amy Still Can’t Win Over Black Voters

    It’s not their color. It’s not their gender or sexuality. It’s not even their policies or records that are holding them back with voters of color (their records are not great, but they’re still not Mike Bloomberg). It’s their unexamined white privilege, buoyed by their unearned status among the white media, mixed with their unnerving and incessant prattle about “Midwestern values” that has black and brown voters casting about for other options. It’s not that people of color haven’t “gotten to know” Buttigieg or Klobuchar. It’s that we know them all too well.
    ...

    Buttigieg supporters push back on the narrative that Mayor Pete wouldn’t be in the race, much less a front-runner, without his whiteness. And then they make the biggest mistake possible if their goal was actually to win over black voters: They compare Buttigieg’s credentials to Barack Obama’s.

    It is an insult to black people when white people compare Buttigieg 2020 to Obama 2008. The mere suggestion that some 38-year-old mayor from the fourth-largest city in Indiana is in the same ballpark as Obama is infuriating and tracks with the casual way many white people dismiss or diminish the accomplishments of the first African American president. Obama was a state senator for Illinois’s 13th district. That district alone is roughly double the population of South Bend, Indiana. Then, Obama was a United States senator. Even Rod Blagojevich knows “that thing… is golden.” And that’s not all. Obama burst onto the political scene not during some janky CNN town hall, but with a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Buttigieg is “well spoken”; Obama will be remembered as one of the great orators of the 21st century.
    ...

    For a candidate who constantly talks about voters getting ignored, Klobuchar always seems to forget that Midwestern white folks are doing pretty well compared to their black and brown counterparts. Minnesota, for instance, has a median household income of $68,000 and change. That’s higher than the national average. But for black families in Minnesota, the average household income is $38,100. Klobuchar constantly says the Midwest is not “flyover” country, but it’s black and brown people, more than anybody else, who have been passed over in this economic recovery.


    People of color notice this. We notice when candidates juxtapose the Midwestern, rural experience against the urban, coastal experience and judge America’s small towns to be more valuable and important. We notice when Klobuchar gets an easy ride on her prosecutorial record while Kamala Harris was the subject of New York Times exposés about hers from the moment she announced. We notice when Harris or Julián Castro get in trouble for attacking Joe Biden, while Klobuchar attacks everybody yet consistently gets hailed as one of the debate “winners” by media pundits. Just because they’ve been campaigning in white states doesn’t mean people of color haven’t been watching. Black people do not pop into political existence only when spoken to.


    And then to top it all off, a rather entertaining and painfully accurate article titled Why Your Presidential Candidate Is Trash (Yes, Yours Too) from late January that I feel everyone should read.

    Ultimately, most black people are going to vote for whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee. If black voter turnout declines in the 2020 election, it will be because white voters chose a nominee who couldn’t, or didn’t care to motivate black voters. On the other hand, many of the most vocal white supporters who are rankled by actual facts will turn around and vote for Trump if their candidate does not emerge victorious at the conclusion of the primary season.

    Yep, we already know that—no matter who the Democrats select—white people are gonna still vote for Donald Trump.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  23. #443

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Why do you think there is enough of a wavering never-Trump demographic to make an electoral difference? Like, Joe Walsh - fine, but there aren't very many such people. Do you have some good data on the subject? Because without data, we may as well speculate that increased 18-35 turnout (and youth are like 3/4 Dem-voting these days) will make up for any loss of moderate Republicans several-fold.

    If they vote by and large third-party, or stay home, that's enough. Speaking of third parties, their vote share will revert 2 to 4 points - how that distributes between Trump and (presumptively) Sanders is more interesting to me than hanging on the cues of a demographic (no offense to your parents) with an outsize influence on our media discourse.

    A somewhat-relevant bit of polling:




    Nevada caucus: I hate this dribbling of returns. They say you can only have two of reliability, transparency, and speed; I'd much prefer they wait 24 hours to verify the process and dump everything at a scheduled time. Make it a standard and candidates will stop feeling the need to opportunistically seize a narrative anyhow. Let's revisit the final results here.


    Now for a bit of Bloomberg-bashing:

    Why has Bloomberg donated to Donald Trump's 2020 campaign? In fact, Bloomberg entities have donated to basically every Democratic campaign except Sanders and Warren (although he has donated to the Senate funds of both).

    Hashtag Abolish Billionaires.

    And his ad game is wavering.






    More on the qualitative Undecided voter, a blast from the past this time (2004 election). You especially might enjoy this one, Seamus. It's a picture of people with the relationship to politics that uncontacted tribespeople have to airplanes.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    For those who follow politics, there are few things more mysterious, more inscrutable, more maddening than the mind of the undecided voter. In this year's election, when the choice was so stark and the differences between the candidates were so obvious, how could any halfway intelligent human remain undecided for long? "These people," Jonah Goldberg once wrote of undecided voters, on a rare occasion when he probably spoke for the entire political class, "can't make up their minds, in all likelihood, because either they don't care or they don't know anything."

    And that was more or less how I felt before I decided to spend the last seven weeks of the campaign talking to swing voters in Wisconsin. In September, I signed up to work for the League of Conservation Voters' Environmental Victory Project--a canvassing operation that recruited volunteers in five states to knock on doors in "swing wards" with high concentrations of undecided or persuadable voters. During my time in suburban Dane County, which surrounds Madison, I knocked on more than 1,000 doors and talked to hundreds of Wisconsin residents. Our mission was simple: to identify undecided voters and convince them to vote for John Kerry.

    My seven weeks in Wisconsin left me with a number of observations (all of them highly anecdotal, to be sure) about swing voters, which I explain below. But those small observations add up to one overarching contention: that the caricature of undecided voters favored by liberals and conservatives alike doesn't do justice to the complexity, indeed the oddity, of undecided voters themselves. None of this is to say that undecided voters are completely undeserving of the derision that the political class has heaped on them--just that Jonah Goldberg, and the rest of us, may well be deriding them for the wrong reasons.

    Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think. Members of the political class may disparage undecided voters, but we at least tend to impute to them a basic rationality. We're giving them too much credit. I met voters who told me they were voting for Bush, but who named their most important issue as the environment. One man told me he voted for Bush in 2000 because he thought that with Cheney, an oilman, on the ticket, the administration would finally be able to make us independent from foreign oil. A colleague spoke to a voter who had been a big Howard Dean fan, but had switched to supporting Bush after Dean lost the nomination. After half an hour in the man's house, she still couldn't make sense of his decision. Then there was the woman who called our office a few weeks before the election to tell us that though she had signed up to volunteer for Kerry she had now decided to back Bush. Why? Because the president supported stem cell research. The office became quiet as we all stopped what we were doing to listen to one of our fellow organizers try, nobly, to disabuse her of this notion. Despite having the facts on her side, the organizer didn't have much luck.

    Undecided voters do care about politics; they just don't enjoy politics. Political junkies tend to assume that undecided voters are undecided because they don't care enough to make up their minds. But while I found that most undecided voters are, as one Kerry aide put it to The New York Times, "relatively low-information, relatively disengaged," the lack of engagement wasn't a sign that they didn't care. After all, if they truly didn't care, they wouldn't have been planning to vote. The undecided voters I talked to did care about politics, or at least judged it to be important; they just didn't enjoy politics.

    The mere fact that you're reading this article right now suggests that you not only think politics is important, but you actually like it. You read the paper and listen to political radio and talk about politics at parties. In other words, you view politics the way a lot of people view cooking or sports or opera: as a hobby. Most undecided voters, by contrast, seem to view politics the way I view laundry. While I understand that to be a functioning member of society I have to do my laundry, and I always eventually get it done, I'll never do it before every last piece of clean clothing is dirty, as I find the entire business to be a chore. A significant number of undecided voters, I think, view politics in exactly this way: as a chore, a duty, something that must be done but is altogether unpleasant, and therefore something best put off for as long as possible.

    A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists. In the age of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, pundits agreed that this would be the most foreign policy-oriented election in a generation--and polling throughout the summer seemed to bear that out. In August the Pew Center found that 40 percent of voters were identifying foreign policy and defense as their top issues, the highest level of interest in foreign policy during an election year since 1972.

    But just because voters were unusually concerned about foreign policy didn't mean they had fundamentally shifted their outlook on world affairs. In fact, among undecided voters, I encountered a consistent and surprising isolationism--an isolationism that September 11 was supposed to have made obsolete everywhere but the left and right fringes of the political spectrum. Voters I spoke to were concerned about the Iraq war and about securing American interests, but they seemed entirely unmoved by the argument--accepted, in some form or another, by just about everyone in Washington--that the security of the United States is dependent on the freedom and well-being of the rest of the world.

    In fact, there was a disturbing trend among undecided voters--as well as some Kerry supporters--towards an opposition to the Iraq war based largely on the ugliest of rationales. I had one conversation with an undecided, sixtyish, white voter whose wife was voting for Kerry. When I mentioned the "mess in Iraq" he lit up. "We should have gone through Iraq like shit through tinfoil," he said, leaning hard on the railing of his porch. As I tried to make sense of the mental image this evoked, he continued: "I mean we should have dominated the place; that's the only thing these people understand. ... Teaching democracy to Arabs is like teaching the alphabet to rats." I didn't quite know what to do with this comment, so I just thanked him for his time and slipped him some literature. (What were the options? Assure him that a Kerry White House wouldn't waste tax dollars on literacy classes for rodents?)

    That may have been the most explicit articulation I heard of this mindset--but it wasn't an isolated incident. A few days later, someone told me that he wished we could put Saddam back in power because he "knew how to rule these people." While Bush's rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy played well with blue-state liberal hawks and red-state Christian conservatives who are inclined towards a missionary view of world affairs, it seemed to fall flat among the undecided voters I spoke with. This was not merely the view of the odd kook; it was a common theme I heard from all different kinds of undecided voters. Clearly the Kerry campaign had focus groups or polling that supported this, hence its candidate's frequent--and wince- inducing--America-first rhetoric about opening firehouses in Baghdad while closing them in the United States.

    The worse things got in Iraq, the better things got for Bush. Liberal commentators, and even many conservative ones, assumed, not unreasonably, that the awful situation in Iraq would prove to be the president's undoing. But I found that the very severity and intractability of the Iraq disaster helped Bush because it induced a kind of fatalism about the possibility of progress. Time after time, undecided voters would agree vociferously with every single critique I offered of Bush's Iraq policy, but conclude that it really didn't matter who was elected, since neither candidate would have any chance of making things better. Yeah, but what's Kerry gonna do? voters would ask me, and when I told them Kerry would bring in allies they would wave their hands and smile with condescension, as if that answer was impossibly naïve. C'mon, they'd say, you don't really think that's going to work, do you?

    To be sure, maybe they simply thought Kerry's promise to bring in allies was a lame idea--after all, many well-informed observers did. But I became convinced that there was something else at play here, because undecided voters extended the same logic to other seemingly intractable problems, like the deficit or health care. On these issues, too, undecideds recognized the severity of the situation--but precisely because they understood the severity, they were inclined to be skeptical of Kerry's ability to fix things. Undecided voters, as everyone knows, have a deep skepticism about the ability of politicians to keep their promises and solve problems. So the staggering incompetence and irresponsibility of the Bush administration and the demonstrably poor state of world affairs seemed to serve not as indictments of Bush in particular, but rather of politicians in general. Kerry, by mere dint of being on the ballot, was somehow tainted by Bush's failures as badly as Bush was.

    As a result, undecideds seemed oddly unwilling to hold the president accountable for his previous actions, focusing instead on the practical issue of who would have a better chance of success in the future. Because undecideds seemed uninterested in assessing responsibility for the past, Bush suffered no penalty for having made things so bad; and because undecideds were focused on, but cynical about, the future, the worse things appeared, the less inclined they were to believe that problems could be fixed--thereby nullifying the backbone of Kerry's case. Needless to say, I found this logic maddening.

    Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues. Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the "issues." That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured--a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example--but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I'd just asked them to name their favorite prime number.

    The majority of undecided voters I spoke to couldn't name a single issue that was important to them. This was shocking to me. Think about it: The "issue" is the basic unit of political analysis for campaigns, candidates, journalists, and other members of the chattering classes. It's what makes up the subheadings on a candidate's website, it's what sober, serious people wish election outcomes hinged on, it's what every candidate pledges to run his campaign on, and it's what we always complain we don't see enough coverage of.

    But the very concept of the issue seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided voters I spoke to. (This was also true of a number of committed voters in both camps--though I'll risk being partisan here and say that Kerry voters, in my experience, were more likely to name specific issues they cared about than Bush supporters.) At first I thought this was a problem of simple semantics--maybe, I thought, "issue" is a term of art that sounds wonky and intimidating, causing voters to react as if they're being quizzed on a topic they haven't studied. So I tried other ways of asking the same question: "Anything of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything? Are you excited about what's been happening in the country in the last four years?"

    These questions, too, more often than not yielded bewilderment. As far as I could tell, the problem wasn't the word "issue"; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the "political." The undecideds I spoke to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief--not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.

    To cite one example: I had a conversation with an undecided truck driver who was despondent because he had just hit a woman's car after having worked a week straight. He didn't think the accident was his fault and he was angry about being sued. "There's too many lawsuits these days," he told me. I was set to have to rebut a "tort reform" argument, but it never came. Even though there was a ready-made connection between what was happening in his life and a campaign issue, he never made the leap. I asked him about the company he worked for and whether it would cover his legal expenses; he said he didn't think so. I asked him if he was unionized and he said no. "The last job was unionized," he said. "They would have covered my expenses." I tried to steer him towards a political discussion about how Kerry would stand up for workers' rights and protect unions, but it never got anywhere. He didn't seem to think there was any connection between politics and whether his company would cover his legal costs. Had he made a connection between his predicament and the issue of tort reform, it might have benefited Bush; had he made a connection between his predicament and the issue of labor rights, it might have benefited Kerry. He made neither, and remained undecided.

    In this context, Bush's victory, particularly on the strength of those voters who listed "values" as their number one issue, makes perfect sense. Kerry ran a campaign that was about politics: He parsed the world into political categories and offered political solutions. Bush did this too, but it wasn't the main thrust of his campaign. Instead, the president ran on broad themes, like "character" and "morals." Everyone feels an immediate and intuitive expertise on morals and values--we all know what's right and wrong. But how can undecided voters evaluate a candidate on issues if they don't even grasp what issues are?

    Liberals like to point out that majorities of Americans agree with the Democratic Party on the issues, so Republicans are forced to run on character and values in order to win. (This cuts both ways: I met a large number of Bush/Feingold voters whose politics were more in line with the Republican president, but who admired the backbone and gutsiness of their Democratic senator.) But polls that ask people about issues presuppose a basic familiarity with the concept of issues--a familiarity that may not exist.

    As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon "issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues. The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008. But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a majority party again.
    Last edited by Montmorency; Today at 07:13.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  24. #444
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swampville
    Posts
    11,111

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Why do you think there is enough of a wavering never-Trump demographic to make an electoral difference? Like, Joe Walsh - fine, but there aren't very many such people. Do you have some good data on the subject? Because without data, we may as well speculate that increased 18-35 turnout (and youth are like 3/4 Dem-voting these days) will make up for any loss of moderate Republicans several-fold.

    If they vote by and large third-party, or stay home, that's enough. Speaking of third parties, their vote share will revert 2 to 4 points - how that distributes between Trump and (presumptively) Sanders is more interesting to me than hanging on the cues of a demographic (no offense to your parents) with an outsize influence on our media discourse.
    I think the biggest data point on the issue would be the 2018 midterms. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6. The progressive wing didnt flip a single district in 2018. Im not talking exclusively about the never-Trumper vote. Im talking about the folks in the middle who might not really like Trump but also fear huge change like Bernie. They don't agree with policy positions like banning private insurance, letting prisoners vote, decriminalizing the border, etc. Polling shows that these are very unpopular positions in the places Dems need to win in November and I worry that the combinations of all these positions will hurt more than help, especially in down-ballot races.
    Reunification: a Marcomanni AAR (on permanent hiatus)
    Zalmoxis's Lightning: a Getae AAR (finished)
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    (finished)

    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  25. #445
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,368

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    On a side note, this article from last week about the demographic most vital to a Trump defeat:

    Much ado about black voters



    To follow, this article is also well worth a read:

    They Rocked New Hampshire—but Pete and Amy Still Can’t Win Over Black Voters




    And then to top it all off, a rather entertaining and painfully accurate article titled Why Your Presidential Candidate Is Trash (Yes, Yours Too) from late January that I feel everyone should read.
    It's interesting that the narrative of Obama as the "first African American President" is so unexamined and accepted at face value.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO