2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah and that's why Bloomberg and Biden, the two candidates who are most running on a "trump bad" campaign, are losing badly in the primaries so far while candidates who actually spend time fleshing out their policy proposals and using forward-looking language in their campaigns (like Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg) are doing better than them.

My point is that the Democratic Party unambiguously hasn't devolved into "trump bad" the way that the Republican Party has thrown out their platform in the last ten years. There are real goals in the Dem party now, which their arguably wasn't in 2016.

Hmm, what about Obama bad. Does anybody remember that? The whole stupid Birth Certificate fuss? Who started that anyway?

Staunch Hillary Clinton supporters who were looking for any way to try and derail Obama near the end of the primary. It was then picked up and spread further by Republicans afterwards.

[Cisairse]

Yeah and that's why Bloomberg and Biden, the two candidates who are most running on a "trump bad" campaign, are losing badly in the primaries so far while candidates who actually spend time fleshing out their policy proposals and using forward-looking language in their campaigns (like Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg) are doing better than them.

My point is that the Democratic Party unambiguously hasn't devolved into "trump bad" the way that the Republican Party has thrown out their platform in the last ten years. There are real goals in the Dem party now, which their arguably wasn't in 2016.

Hmm, what about Obama bad. Does anybody remember that? The whole stupid Birth Certificate fuss? Who started that anyway?

mainly Donald Trump, actually

[Valrifell]

Hmm, what about Obama bad. Does anybody remember that? The whole stupid Birth Certificate fuss? Who started that anyway?

Staunch Hillary Clinton supporters who were looking for any way to try and derail Obama near the end of the primary. It was then picked up and spread further by Republicans afterwards.

Jesus just let the Republicans take a little blame for once, yeah?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Staunch Hillary Clinton supporters who were looking for any way to try and derail Obama near the end of the primary. It was then picked up and spread further by Republicans afterwards.

Jesus just let the Republicans take a little blame for once, yeah?

It's literally a well documented thing.

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

[The Lone Alliance]

Yeah and that's why Bloomberg and Biden, the two candidates who are most running on a "trump bad" campaign, are losing badly in the primaries so far while candidates who actually spend time fleshing out their policy proposals and using forward-looking language in their campaigns (like Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg) are doing better than them.

My point is that the Democratic Party unambiguously hasn't devolved into "trump bad" the way that the Republican Party has thrown out their platform in the last ten years. There are real goals in the Dem party now, which their arguably wasn't in 2016.

I'm not talking about the people of the party, I'm talking about the Democratic Party as in it's actual functionaries of the ones who are running it. Considering the fact that many of them are still leaning on Biden despite his obvious dramatic fall and how others are starting to lean on Bloomberg, it's clear that for them at least, they don't want to run on anything but Trump bad because they don't want to run on any policy programs that might dramatically shake things up because they have been convinced that such policy platforms are unwinnable.

But as we knew from 2016, it's very clear that the DNC has a very bad habit of shooting itself in the foot whenever they get a chance.

Then again the RNC isn't much better. I guess when it comes to running a political party it's not really a job you give to your best and brightest but your most loyalist.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Gutting public education is a disgusting position to take.

I disagree.

Do you want a dumber and less educated populace? Cuz that’s how you get that.

[Bear Stearns]

My top issues in order of priority are:

1) Immigration (hard restrictionist)
2) Foreign policy (anti-war, non-interventionism)
3) Environment (I don't see this realistically being solved by either party)
4) Economy (I side with Democrats on economics)

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

My top issues in order of priority are:

1) Immigration (hard restrictionist)
2) Foreign policy (anti-war, non-interventionism)
3) Environment (I don't see this realistically being solved by either party)
4) Economy (I side with Democrats on economics)

What ideology are you exactly?

[Aureumterra]

Yeah and that's why Bloomberg and Biden, the two candidates who are most running on a "trump bad" campaign, are losing badly in the primaries so far while candidates who actually spend time fleshing out their policy proposals and using forward-looking language in their campaigns (like Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg) are doing better than them.

My point is that the Democratic Party unambiguously hasn't devolved into "trump bad" the way that the Republican Party has thrown out their platform in the last ten years. There are real goals in the Dem party now, which their arguably wasn't in 2016.

Hmm, what about Obama bad. Does anybody remember that? The whole stupid Birth Certificate fuss? Who started that anyway?

Obama continued Bush’s war crimes, regardless of his skin color

[Gormwood]

I disagree.

Do you want a dumber and less educated populace? Cuz that’s how you get that.

It's like that's what he wants.

[Aureumterra]

My top issues in order of priority are:

1) Immigration (hard restrictionist)
2) Foreign policy (anti-war, non-interventionism)
3) Environment (I don't see this realistically being solved by either party)
4) Economy (I side with Democrats on economics)

What ideology are you exactly?

Seems like an average paleocon

[Aclion]

But as we knew from 2016, it's very clear that the DNC has a very bad habit of shooting itself in the foot whenever they get a chance.

Then again the RNC isn't much better. I guess when it comes to running a political party it's not really a job you give to your best and brightest but your most loyalist.

It's in the nature of a political party. Anyone with the ability to run it effectively will be in office, so the actual party matters dealt with by people who either don't have the talent or have retired from public office and are probably out of touch.

[Aurilon]

What ideology are you exactly?

Seems like an average paleocon

Looks more like ecofash to me

[Corrian]

Also I posted this earlier:

"I could get myself to vote for most of the candidates left right now. Buttigieg? I'm disappointed in him from how I liked him at the start, but I could pretty easily vote for him. Klobuchar? More moderate than me but I like her and she seems like a good bipartisan candidate. Warren I would vote for with ease. Gabbard is more questionable for me now, but I could probably still do it. Biden I really don't want to have to vote for, especially with how he's acted lately, but I could possibly suck it up and vote for him.

I will absolutely not vote for Bloomberg if he is the nominee. Absolutely not. He's a complete piece of shit. And he's everything wrong with current politics in America. If he wins the nomination, and we've decided that fucking Billionaire Vs Billionaire is a good idea in this country, I'll legitimately consider getting the fuck out of this country. Because clearly at that point, we are a dead, hopeless country. I likely at that point would just not vote for President in general. I don't care if its Trump he's going up against, I'm not voting for the man. I consider Bloomberg a whole different level of a danger to our entire country. Instead of Trump, who is too dumb to get what he wants half the time, albeit he keeps trying and gets away with it because Republicans are stupid, Bloomberg actually knows what he is doing, and in all honesty that might be even scarier."

Not that I think Bloomberg will last past super Tuesday, if he is the nominee does that mean you would consider voting for Trump?

God no. I wouldn't vote President at all.

[Corrian]

Also I posted this earlier:

"I could get myself to vote for most of the candidates left right now. Buttigieg? I'm disappointed in him from how I liked him at the start, but I could pretty easily vote for him. Klobuchar? More moderate than me but I like her and she seems like a good bipartisan candidate. Warren I would vote for with ease. Gabbard is more questionable for me now, but I could probably still do it. Biden I really don't want to have to vote for, especially with how he's acted lately, but I could possibly suck it up and vote for him.

I will absolutely not vote for Bloomberg if he is the nominee. Absolutely not. He's a complete piece of shit. And he's everything wrong with current politics in America. If he wins the nomination, and we've decided that fucking Billionaire Vs Billionaire is a good idea in this country, I'll legitimately consider getting the fuck out of this country. Because clearly at that point, we are a dead, hopeless country. I likely at that point would just not vote for President in general. I don't care if its Trump he's going up against, I'm not voting for the man. I consider Bloomberg a whole different level of a danger to our entire country. Instead of Trump, who is too dumb to get what he wants half the time, albeit he keeps trying and gets away with it because Republicans are stupid, Bloomberg actually knows what he is doing, and in all honesty that might be even scarier."

What about Sanders?

Considering I'm voting for him in the primary...yes, I would.

[Zurkerx]

New Poll in Nevada shows Sanders Leading. The breakdown:

Sanders 35%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 14%
Steyer 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Gabbard 2%

Sanders holds a commanding lead, however, people's second and third choice gets rather interesting:

Second Choice

Klobuchar 20%
Warren 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 15%
Steyer 14%
Sanders 12%
Gabbard 5%

Third Choice

Warren 24%
Klobuchar 19%
Buttigieg 16%
Steyer 16%
Sanders 11%
Biden 11%
Gabbard 2%

So, dissecting the numbers here, Sanders clearly leads among people's first choice. However, when it comes to being someone's second or even third choice, he's at the bottom. While one poll, this tells us that Sanders has a loyal base but outside that, he's limited. Warren does well among people's second and third choice but that's likely due to Sanders supporters backing her, not a good proposition for her. Once again, Klobuchar and Buttigieg are doing well as people's second choice, a clear sign that if someone like Biden or one of them fails to get 15% the first time, they're more likely to navigate towards a moderate. That's a double edge sword: while it'll show a couple viable candidates, it'll also continue to split the moderate vote. Tomorrow's debate will be crucial to win people over as their second choice, and Sanders needs to heed to that.

[Cisairse]

What ideology are you exactly?

Seems like an average paleocon

Paleocons definitely don't agree with the Democrats on economic issues. Paleocons tend towards lassez-faire nonsense.

But as we knew from 2016, it's very clear that the DNC has a very bad habit of shooting itself in the foot whenever they get a chance.

Then again the RNC isn't much better. I guess when it comes to running a political party it's not really a job you give to your best and brightest but your most loyalist.

It's in the nature of a political party. Anyone with the ability to run it effectively will be in office, so the actual party matters dealt with by people who either don't have the talent or have retired from public office and are probably out of touch.

It's different when your party just went out of power. Tom Perez, for example, has been doing a pretty good job as DNC chair; prior to serving in that role, he served as the Secretary of Labor for the entirety of Obama's second term as president. When a two-term president leaves office, there's generally a ton of qualified and experienced people who now need jobs. Not all of them can run for president (well, not all of them can win). So you have former cabinet members running for parties' top positions, mayoralties of large cities, Senate or House seats, etc.

The large amount of qualified candidates is one of the reasons Pete Buttigieg lost as hard as he did.

New Poll in Nevada shows Sanders Leading. The breakdown:

Sanders 35%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 14%
Steyer 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Gabbard 2%

Sanders holds a commanding lead, however, people's second and third choice gets rather interesting:

Second Choice

Klobuchar 20%
Warren 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 15%
Steyer 14%
Sanders 12%
Gabbard 5%

Third Choice

Warren 24%
Klobuchar 19%
Buttigieg 16%
Steyer 16%
Sanders 11%
Biden 11%
Gabbard 2%

So, dissecting the numbers here, Sanders clearly leads among people's first choice. However, when it comes to being someone's second or even third choice, he's at the bottom. While one poll, this tells us that Sanders has a loyal base but outside that, he's limited. Warren does well among people's second and third choice but that's likely due to Sanders supporters backing her, not a good proposition for her. Once again, Klobuchar and Buttigieg are doing well as people's second choice, a clear sign that if someone like Biden or one of them fails to get 15% the first time, they're more likely to navigate towards a moderate. That's a double edge sword: while it'll show a couple viable candidates, it'll also continue to split the moderate vote. Tomorrow's debate will be crucial to win people over as their second choice, and Sanders needs to heed to that.

Holy shit. I think this is the first poll in any state I've seen that lists Sanders + Warren as having an outright majority of the vote. That's super significant.

[Saturna1ia]

I'll openly admit to voting for Trump solely out of spite in the improbable event Bloomberg wins the nomination, but then again I live in a state where the General Election outcome is already determined.

[Tarsonis]

Not that I think Bloomberg will last past super Tuesday, if he is the nominee does that mean you would consider voting for Trump?

God no. I wouldn't vote President at all.

Not even a write in? I'm thinking of either Martin Sheen or Jimmy Smits

[Saturna1ia]

Holy shit. I think this is the first poll in any state I've seen that lists Sanders + Warren as having an outright majority of the vote. That's super significant.

It's especially significant if one considers the demographic data. The fastest growing racial groups in the US by far are Asians and Hispanics. If polls are correct that Sanders is leading in Nevada,California,Texas,and New Mexico then that indicates he, or at least his progressive policies, are the future of the Democratic Party if it truly wants an effective broad coalition.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I still haven't seen a plausible and detailed account of how Buttigieg won the delegates in Iowa.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The New York Times released a highly detailed and plausible (to the point where what they say is basically just true) account of how Pete did so well.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... takes.html

I read that whole thing, it took twenty minutes thankyou. It was worth the time, as there were several failure modes I wasn't aware of.

However it does not try to, and does not, explain why Buttigieg got a majority of delegates without a plurality of the votes.

Did you even post the right article?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

God no. I wouldn't vote President at all.

Not even a write in? I'm thinking of either Martin Sheen or Jimmy Smits

Some states don't allow write-ins at all, and many others only count write-ins for people who registered for them.

New Hampshire is a write-in state (it's also easy to get on the ballot, hence so many) but even they don't record the write-ins unless there's a viable number. How they decide viable I forget.

[Aureumterra]

Not even a write in? I'm thinking of either Martin Sheen or Jimmy Smits

Some states don't allow write-ins at all, and many others only count write-ins for people who registered for them.

New Hampshire is a write-in state (it's also easy to get on the ballot, hence so many) but even they don't record the write-ins unless there's a viable number. How they decide viable I forget.

I wonder if you can write yourself in…?

[Saturna1ia]

Some states don't allow write-ins at all, and many others only count write-ins for people who registered for them.

New Hampshire is a write-in state (it's also easy to get on the ballot, hence so many) but even they don't record the write-ins unless there's a viable number. How they decide viable I forget.

I wonder if you can write yourself in…?

Yes

[Cisairse]

Holy shit. I think this is the first poll in any state I've seen that lists Sanders + Warren as having an outright majority of the vote. That's super significant.

It's especially significant if one considers the demographic data. The fastest growing racial groups in the US by far are Asians and Hispanics. If polls are correct that Sanders is leading in Nevada,California,Texas,and New Mexico then that indicates he, or at least his progressive policies, are the future of the Democratic Party if it truly wants an effective broad coalition.

That gives me hope. We'll see if it's enough to win in 2020, though. Pundits have been claiming that "changing demographics" will lead to a blue wave for like fifteen years. It hasn't really happened so far.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The New York Times released a highly detailed and plausible (to the point where what they say is basically just true) account of how Pete did so well.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... takes.html

I read that whole thing, it took twenty minutes thankyou. It was worth the time, as there were several failure modes I wasn't aware of.

However it does not try to, and does not, explain why Buttigieg got a majority of delegates without a plurality of the votes.

Did you even post the right article?

I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. I posted it mildly facetiously to imply that Buttigieg only received more SDEs due to errors in vote processing.