2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Major-Tom]

I'm not excited about Harris at all. Same goes for Gillibrand and Booker. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gets another agonizing 4 year run and then we get a Dem in 2024.

Why the hell should you need to be excited about a candidate to support them? This is governance, not American fucking Idol.

It's generally a good rule of thumb that for a candidate to have high elect-ability, they not only need a set of decent policies, but also something that can energize and inspire voters. Otherwise, there is a large amount of apathy, people stay home, and we end up with, say, four more years of Trump.

[Hediacrana]

Fivethirtyeight suggests her chances of becoming the nominee are actually pretty good, given the preferences of the five main constituencies within the Democratic party. The main challenge is that it's going to be a crowded field, and that some of her competitors have much more name recognition.

That article is clickbait. 538 is supposed to be a statistics website, yet the deepest statistical analysis that article gives is that there are black people in several states. Also, that diamond thing they made is garbage. For one thing, the theoretical maximum possible support from a constituency is not the same as the actual support. For another, moderates/conservatives/independents is apparently not a constituency, despite there being way more conservatives than socialists in the Democratic Party.

I think you might think differently if you read a bit on the background of their model - it's quite sensible, actually. Also, obviously, any predictive model is by definition going to be dealing with theoretical, rather than actual support.

[Major-Tom]

Additionally, a major grievance that many Dems have with Harris is that her actions as California AG and her legislative actions as a Senator are almost a juxtapose in some cases. As AG and as a DA, she happily defended California's three strikes law, declined to prosecute Mnuchin and his company (and received donations from him for her 2016 campaign). She was known to be bullish and almost quite conservative when it came to law and order as an AG, generally defying the state Democratic Party.

And, yet, she wins a Senate seat and changes her tune entirely. It screams opportunism, especially seeing as she's a first term Senator. I can see why people aren't all that eager for Harris to throw her name in the ring.

[South Odreria]

That article is clickbait. 538 is supposed to be a statistics website, yet the deepest statistical analysis that article gives is that there are black people in several states. Also, that diamond thing they made is garbage. For one thing, the theoretical maximum possible support from a constituency is not the same as the actual support. For another, moderates/conservatives/independents is apparently not a constituency, despite there being way more conservatives than socialists in the Democratic Party.

I think you might think differently if you read a bit on the background of their model - it's quite sensible, actually. Also, obviously, any predictive model is by definition going to be dealing with theoretical, rather than actual support.

That's not a predictive model at all, it's just someone's opinion that there are no moderates or conservatives in the Democratic Party, which is an incorrect opinion.

[Hediacrana]

I think you might think differently if you read a bit on the background of their model - it's quite sensible, actually. Also, obviously, any predictive model is by definition going to be dealing with theoretical, rather than actual support.

That's not a predictive model at all, it's just someone's opinion that there are no moderates or conservatives in the Democratic Party, which is an incorrect opinion.

Did you actually read it? Because for the life of me I can't see how you could take that message away from that text.

[Major-Tom]

That article is clickbait. 538 is supposed to be a statistics website, yet the deepest statistical analysis that article gives is that there are black people in several states. Also, that diamond thing they made is garbage. For one thing, the theoretical maximum possible support from a constituency is not the same as the actual support. For another, moderates/conservatives/independents is apparently not a constituency, despite there being way more conservatives than socialists in the Democratic Party.

I think you might think differently if you read a bit on the background of their model - it's quite sensible, actually. Also, obviously, any predictive model is by definition going to be dealing with theoretical, rather than actual support.

I think that's a decent preliminary model, but after 2016, any model or attempt to create constituencies could possibly fall flat on it's face. We'll see, but overall, it makes a solid point.

[Page]

Gabbard:
Pros: Bernie base, veteran, ohana means family
Cons: pro-Assad, Ron Paul from Hawaii, looooong history of homophobia and islamophobia

She's not pro-Assad, she's anti al-Queda.

Two possible outcomes for Syria: Assad wins, or Syria collapses into a failed state where radical Islamist extremists run wild. Pick one. Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people who had the common sense to think "Yeah Assad is an asshole, but holy shit why is the US government arming al-Queda?"

And so what if she was homophobic in the past? Most people alive today were homophobic at one point in their life. We're all shaped by our environment, influenced by religion and culture. What matters is realizing you were wrong and then doing what you can to fight for justice, and all of her actions as a Congresswoman have been 100% pro-LGBT. We can't all be expected to be enlightened from the day we're born.

[United States of Natan]

Why the hell should you need to be excited about a candidate to support them? This is governance, not American fucking Idol.

It's generally a good rule of thumb that for a candidate to have high elect-ability, they not only need a set of decent policies, but also something that can energize and inspire voters. Otherwise, there is a large amount of apathy, people stay home, and we end up with, say, four more years of Trump.

That's the problem with people today. The have to be "excited" about someone to support them. That's absolutely absurd. A candidate should not need to excite you to get your support, they should just need to have good policies.

That said, I do happen to be very excited about Kamala Harris, but that certainly doesn't factor into my decision.

[Major-Tom]

It's generally a good rule of thumb that for a candidate to have high elect-ability, they not only need a set of decent policies, but also something that can energize and inspire voters. Otherwise, there is a large amount of apathy, people stay home, and we end up with, say, four more years of Trump.

That's the problem with people today. The have to be "excited" about someone to support them. That's absolutely absurd. A candidate should not need to excite you to get your support, they should just need to have good policies.

That said, I do happen to be very excited about Kamala Harris, but that certainly doesn't factor into my decision.

Well, you can say "that's a problem with people," whatever. But as I touched upon, excitement isn't drawn from personality specifically. It involves a multitude of factors, most notably, a candidate with policies that inspire.

Furthermore, you can criticize voters for wanting a candidate who is "exciting." But dismissing those notions that they have is absurd, because they are voters, men and women who can deliver us a President in 2021 who isn't rotten to the core.

[Page]

It's generally a good rule of thumb that for a candidate to have high elect-ability, they not only need a set of decent policies, but also something that can energize and inspire voters. Otherwise, there is a large amount of apathy, people stay home, and we end up with, say, four more years of Trump.

That's the problem with people today. The have to be "excited" about someone to support them. That's absolutely absurd. A candidate should not need to excite you to get your support, they should just need to have good policies.

Good policy is what excites me, and that's precisely why most Democrats are disappointing.

[South Odreria]

That's not a predictive model at all, it's just someone's opinion that there are no moderates or conservatives in the Democratic Party, which is an incorrect opinion.

Did you actually read it? Because for the life of me I can't see how you could take that message away from that text.

It mentions social conservatism in the context of lefties Hispanics, and African-Americans. It does not mention economic conservatism or moderate-ness, except in the context of young-libertarian types, not many of whom are registered Democrats. Economic moderates and white non-socialist social conservatives/moderates are ignored in the constituency pentagon.

[The Black Forrest]

Hearing Kamala Harria announce is not surprising but I doubt she'll get the nomination. But this field of candidates is so far mostly women so this is going to be interesting.

Well damn, Trump it is then.

Interesting how you guys all fall in line.

[Tobleste]

Well damn, Trump it is then.

Interesting how you guys all fall in line.

Truth is they're happy with trump. He's a vindictive bully and his voters are happy with that.

[Page]

It's always fun to watch solidly right-wing Trump supporters pretend to be moderates who are actually considering voting for a Democrat.

[United States of Natan]

It's always fun to watch solidly right-wing Trump supporters pretend to be moderates who are actually considering voting for a Democrat.

True. Nobody's buying into it.

[Telconi]

Well damn, Trump it is then.

Interesting how you guys all fall in line.

If you find the idea of voting for the better candidate to be of note, you might be voting wrong.

[Telconi]

Interesting how you guys all fall in line.

Truth is they're happy with trump. He's a vindictive bully and his voters are happy with that.

Implying you comprehend the concept...

[Ngelmish]

That's the problem with people today. The have to be "excited" about someone to support them. That's absolutely absurd. A candidate should not need to excite you to get your support, they should just need to have good policies.

That said, I do happen to be very excited about Kamala Harris, but that certainly doesn't factor into my decision.

Well, you can say "that's a problem with people," whatever. But as I touched upon, excitement isn't drawn from personality specifically. It involves a multitude of factors, most notably, a candidate with policies that inspire.

Furthermore, you can criticize voters for wanting a candidate who is "exciting." But dismissing those notions that they have is absurd, because they are voters, men and women who can deliver us a President in 2021 who isn't rotten to the core.

The problem with the "electability" argument is that it's not just about policies that inspire or personality, though both of those can play a role in it. It's a question of narrative; there's no particular reason that people decide they want to have a beer with George Bush and that Al Gore is a snob without media surrogates pushing those narratives forward, there's no reason why Bernie Sanders should be seen as particularly more authentic or consistent on policy questions than, say, Elizabeth Warren outside of narrative framing.

Some people vote mathematically on policy, a lot of people vote off of who they like as the unknowable charisma factor. But there's no one measurement for charisma, it's purely a question of one narrative drowning others out.

[Puldania]

Elizabeth Warren's campaign ads are quite good.
I think she could have a decent shot as opposed to being a bernie stand-in

[Puldania]

Interesting how you guys all fall in line.

If you find the idea of voting for the better candidate to be of note, you might be voting wrong.

>implying trump is the best candidate
Telconi, I
I don't know how to break it to you...
You've been stranded here from whatever reality you came from...

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you find the idea of voting for the better candidate to be of note, you might be voting wrong.

>implying trump is the best candidate
Telconi, I
I don't know how to break it to you...
You've been stranded here from whatever reality you came from...

It's funny cuz he's from California and it pretty much is another reality

[Telconi]

If you find the idea of voting for the better candidate to be of note, you might be voting wrong.

>implying trump is the best candidate
Telconi, I
I don't know how to break it to you...
You've been stranded here from whatever reality you came from...

>Implying Trump is even remotely as bad as Harris.

That'd be the real one.

[The South Falls]

>implying trump is the best candidate
Telconi, I
I don't know how to break it to you...
You've been stranded here from whatever reality you came from...

>Implying Trump is even remotely as bad as Harris.

That'd be the real one.

Harris sucks. But at least she isn't spouting idiotic shit weekly.

[Washington Resistance Army]

>Implying Trump is even remotely as bad as Harris.

That'd be the real one.

Harris sucks. But at least she isn't spouting idiotic shit weekly.

That's pretty subjective tbh

[Major-Tom]

Harris sucks. But at least she isn't spouting idiotic shit weekly.

That's pretty subjective tbh

Not subjective when it comes to objective truths, things that shouldn't even be lied about in the first place.