I've thought this since debate 1; Warren/Castro

JUburton wrote:I can't say I'm HAPPY about trump dragging us into a recession but it's really going to make 2020 a goddamn cakewalk.

I want Trump gone so badly that I'd be glad to see my retirement funds shredded, if it helps.

No POTUS can cause or prevent a recession, but this one certainly is accelerating the timing and (likely) the severity.

But even someone as ignorant as Trump cannot repeal the economic cycle. Whatever is lost will come back - I just hope it's in 1-3 years, not 10+

JUburton wrote:I've thought this since debate 1; Warren/Castro

Castro > Beto in bringing TX plus diversity points

TomatoPie wrote:

JUburton wrote:I can't say I'm HAPPY about trump dragging us into a recession but it's really going to make 2020 a goddamn cakewalk.

I want Trump gone so badly that I'd be glad to see my retirement funds shredded, if it helps.

No POTUS can cause or prevent a recession, but this one certainly is accelerating the timing and (likely) the severity.

But even someone as ignorant as Trump cannot repeal the economic cycle. Whatever is lost will come back - I just hope it's in 1-3 years, not 10+

Oh I agree, that the POTUS doesn't hold the strings to the economy, but they can accelerate/delay it and he's definitely doing the former.

TomatoPie wrote:

JUburton wrote:I've thought this since debate 1; Warren/Castro

Castro > Beto in bringing TX plus diversity points

I also think he's extremely well spoken and engaging.

@realDonaldTrump
As usual, the Fed did NOTHING! It is incredible that they can “speak” without knowing or asking what I am doing, which will be announced shortly. We have a very strong dollar and a very weak Fed. I will work “brilliantly” with both, and the U.S. will do great...
10:57 AM · Aug 23, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

@realDonaldTrump
....My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?
10:57 AM · Aug 23, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Keep in mind that this is the same guy who cancelled a trip to Denmark because he was upset that its PM used the word "absurd" when dismissing the idea of the US buying Greenland.

JFLNYC wrote:One last time, this assertion is just not consistent with facts.

I posted this (How Democrats Defeat Donald Trump) once before, but it really needs to be posted again in this context:

Stop hypothesizing about Democratic voters’ political priorities and policy appetites and look at the actual evidence of where Americans really are. That’s the 2018 midterms.

It may have minted young progressive superstars like the congresswomen in the squad, but they aren’t especially popular beyond their progressive fan clubs. More important, their victories had zilch to do with why or how Democrats regained control of Congress and have dubious relevance to how Democrats can do the same with the White House in 2020. The House members they replaced were Democrats, not Republicans, so their campaigns weren’t lessons in how to move voters from one party’s column to the other.

Other first-term House candidates’ bids did offer such lessons, so look harder at that crew. Lauren Underwood in the exurbs of Chicago, Xochitl Torres Small in southern New Mexico, Abigail Spanberger in the suburbs of Richmond, Va., and Antonio Delgado in upstate New York — these four defeated Republicans in districts where Trump had prevailed by four to 10 percentage points just two years earlier. None of them ran on the Green New Deal, single-payer health insurance, reparations or the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

They touted more restrained agendas. And they didn’t talk that much about Trump. They knew they didn’t need to. For voters offended by him, he’s his own negative ad, playing 24/7 on cable news.

Of the roughly 90 candidates on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s list of 2018 challengers with some hope of turning a red House district blue, just two made a big pitch for single-payer health care. Both lost. While first-time candidates endorsed by the progressive groups Justice Democrats or Our Revolution certainly won House elections last year, not one flipped a seat. The party did pick up 40 seats overall — just not with the most progressive candidates.

According to a May analysis by Catalist, a data-analysis firm, 89 percent of the Democratic vote gain in 2018 was from swing voters. That’s just one set of numbers, one way to slice the pie, but it does raise questions about the progressive insistence that partisan turnout and a surge in new voters, attracted by bold policy positions, is the path to victory in 2020.

There’s something else funky about that insistence — about the theory that a more progressive Democratic nominee would get all the votes that Hillary Clinton did in 2016 plus ones from people who stayed home in disaffection and much of the left-wing spoiler Jill Stein’s share. A more progressive nominee might lose some of the votes that Clinton did get. Who’s to say that the math, in the end, would be all that favorable?

I remember this post and thought it was good at the time. It seems to me that what this get at is the base line philosophical question about elections these days:

Is the path to victory persuading people or turning them out?

Obviously there is some of both going on in every election, but it seems like one or the other takes precedence in any given cycle. In 2016, on the one hand, there were definitely Obama-to-Trump voters, particularly in WI, MI, and PA, and they certainly had a hand in swinging the election. But also, 1,989,043 more people voted in 2016 than in 2012, but Hillary Clinton got 65,853,514 in 2016 to Obama's 65,915,795 in 2012, a difference of only 62,281 Obama votes. In essence every new voter in 2016 voted for Trump. Perhaps this is because Trump was, for all his faults, something "new" in politics, and Hillary Clinton was about as business-as-usual as you can get, without being a white man.

What if the Dems had run Bernie? He would have been something "new" too - newer than Hillary any way, in terms of the way he talks about politics and issues. Even turning out an extra tiny bit per state might have made a difference. Indeed - Bernie Sanders received 111,850 votes for president in the GENERAL that we know of (in CA, VT, and NH), and only 14 states even permitted him to be a write-in.

So enthusiasm does have a part to play, and enthusiasm derives from personality, newness, but also policy. This is true of Trump: what made him popular isn't some ineffable sense of his charm or his brashness, but his very concrete qualities of saying racist things that people are thinking and making policy proposals that get to that anger, like "The Wall" that "Mexico will pay for."

Nevertheless, the share of voters as a percentage of the total population (not of registered voters) went down in 2016 from 2012, which suggests a dwindling field, and may dictate that more persuading needs to be done of existing voters, and less animation of new ones. Or perhaps it indicates just the opposite: you need to get people who are sitting on the sidelines a reason to get into the game.

Intractable questions, but given that we have had two consecutive cycles of downward trends in presidential elections in terms of turnout, and yet Trump's persona seems to draw a higher-than-usual level of engagement from both sides of the aisle, my bet would be on somebody who has the rhetorical skills to persuade, but who also excites new parts of the electorate.

All that says Elizabeth Warren to me.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not arguing with the numbers, but it does seem to me that a Bernie>Trump>Hillary voter is about as big a MYSOGINIST as you will find. More so than a Biden>Trump>Warren voter.

FYP

Is Liz Warren lying about being a woman too?

I thought TV's formulation there was odd but elected not to change it.

Bottom line: does anyone seriously doubt that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016, had he been the nominee? The difference between Biden and Hillary, on any meaningful policy level, are virtually nil.

I know what is different though. And it's obvious to me that is why she lost. All the numbers on men say that if Hillary had only had a dick, she'd be president.

Granted, not by a much bigger margin than she lost by in terms of popular vote, but enough. Her number of votes compared with Obama in 2012 is nearly identical. If it had only grown proportionally with the number of registered voters, she wins. And it was men, not even men voting for Trump, just not voting at all, that stopped that from happening.

Is it really just men though? I think a lot of women have unfortunate biases against other women.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... e-clintons

Hillary's emails are back!

Also, regarding enthusiasm, I think it’s important to note that beyond the election itself there would be a huge difference in ground-game as far as people excited to work/campaign for a Warren or Sanders rather than a Biden. I’m not sure what impact that would have on this election, but I generally lean towards believing it’s good to get more people engaged.

Gimpy wrote:Is it really just men though? I think a lot of women have unfortunate biases against other women.

No doubt this is true but if you look at the numbers at men, it's stark and it's obvious that Joe Biden, certainly, would have won because he would have gotten more men to vote for him, and quite possibly Bernie too (harder to know for sure since his negatives were never really hammered on).

Keep in mind that Hillary did receive more votes than Trump, Trump received very gentle coverage from the media, and most likely benefited from Russian interference. While he's still getting the kid glove treatment from the media, and the Russians are still a problem, I am hoping Dem awareness of all this is enough to counter it.

Wolfgang622 wrote:So enthusiasm does have a part to play, and enthusiasm derives from personality, newness, but also policy. This is true of Trump: what made him popular isn't some ineffable sense of his charm or his brashness, but his very concrete qualities of saying racist things that people are thinking and making policy proposals that get to that anger, like "The Wall" that "Mexico will pay for."

* * *

All that says Elizabeth Warren to me.

I have no illusions about changing your views, nor those of other young progressives. But certainly you acknowledge that, among Democratic voters, as of right now your views are in a distinct minority, right? In virtually every poll Biden has a double-digit lead over Warren for the nomination and, in most, Warren is behind Bernie, however marginally.

I don't have a crystal ball any more than anyone else but it's also at least plausible that, because people know him well, Biden's support won't deteriorate significantly because his record, gaffes, etc., are already baked in. It's also plausible that, as Warren becomes better known, her support will either stay the same or deteriorate. It's not a given her support will improve.

As for the whole "enthusiasm" question, I think you may underestimate the enthusiasm we voters over 50 have for a candidate with, at least what we perceive to be, the best chance to beat Trump and the lack of enthusiasm we may have for any candidate we perceive to have a distinctly worse chance of winning. Given that we're the majority of Democrats who vote and who tend to have the money necessary to help a Democrat win, you jeopardize our enthusiasm at your peril.

traderdave wrote:@realDonaldTrump
As usual, the Fed did NOTHING! It is incredible that they can “speak” without knowing or asking what I am doing, which will be announced shortly. We have a very strong dollar and a very weak Fed. I will work “brilliantly” with both, and the U.S. will do great...
10:57 AM · Aug 23, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

@realDonaldTrump
....My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?
10:57 AM · Aug 23, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Keep in mind that this is the same guy who cancelled a trip to Denmark because he was upset that its PM used the word "absurd" when dismissing the idea of the US buying Greenland.

Our biggest enemy is the GOP

The thing that pisses me off the most right now though is that the DNC is fucking refusing to include climate change on the agenda. One of the worst ideas out there is that actually proposing to do something about climate change makes you part of some radical left.

I really think this is an issue the Democrats can hammer the shit out of Republicans with.

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:So enthusiasm does have a part to play, and enthusiasm derives from personality, newness, but also policy. This is true of Trump: what made him popular isn't some ineffable sense of his charm or his brashness, but his very concrete qualities of saying racist things that people are thinking and making policy proposals that get to that anger, like "The Wall" that "Mexico will pay for."

* * *

All that says Elizabeth Warren to me.

I have no illusions about changing your views, nor those of other young progressives. But certainly you acknowledge that, among Democratic voters, as of right now your views are in a distinct minority, right?

You keep saying this, but it's just not true.

1. Votes for a candidate are not always good proxies for votes on your position choices, due to things like candidate personality, thoughts on 'electability' etc. You can find this in data and anecdotally with all of the 'I don't love Biden but I think he's the best to beat trump' takes you hear.
2a. According to this one (cherry picking) poll, 81% of Democrats favor a national health plan, 91% favor allowing anyone to buy into Medicare. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll- ... uary-2019/
2b. Democrats overwhelmingly support the (admittedly vague) concept of a Green New Deal (90% ish): https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... al-deepens , https://www.dataforprogress.org/the-gre ... is-popular
2c. You can do the same for taxing the rich more, wealth taxes etc.

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:So enthusiasm does have a part to play, and enthusiasm derives from personality, newness, but also policy. This is true of Trump: what made him popular isn't some ineffable sense of his charm or his brashness, but his very concrete qualities of saying racist things that people are thinking and making policy proposals that get to that anger, like "The Wall" that "Mexico will pay for."

* * *

All that says Elizabeth Warren to me.

I have no illusions about changing your views, nor those of other young progressives. But certainly you acknowledge that, among Democratic voters, as of right now your views are in a distinct minority, right? In virtually every poll Biden has a double-digit lead over Warren for the nomination and, in most, Warren is behind Bernie, however marginally.

Young? Why I'm 41 on Tuesday.

Also, I think it is fair to say that while I may be to your left, and I think of myself as "progressive" insofar as I believe in what used to be called "liberal" politics, I am not really in the wheelhouse you are talking about. I voted for Hillary twice in 2016; granted, a lot of that was my wife (I voted for Obama twice in 2008, but she could not abide Bernie Sanders and wanted desperately for Hillary to win and I wasn't going to have the same argument again - in my heart of hearts I was more of a Bernie guy), but, in terms of temperament, I can say decidedly that I don't like arguments from emotion, which far too many progressives are given to making, or appearing to make, and this is particularly so of Bernie hard-liners. This is why I like Elizabeth Warren so much. She champions causes that are decidedly, truly "liberal" - but really not moreso than the European left - and she does so arguing from data, research, facts, and other things that demonstrate thinking and reason. It's not a broad appeal to "free college!" or "free health care!" from her, as it is from Bernie; it is a detailed look at these basic societal building blocks, how to broaden their availability, and how to pay for that broadening.

Emphasis on "broad." HEY-OOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem. Sorry about that.

No, I like Elizabeth Warren because she is a genuine liberal who is smart as hell and can USE emotion but not RELY on it. She understands things like "money doesn't grow on trees" and "you need to pay for the shit you want to do." I am no Bernie Bro, and lots of them seem to think about all the shit they want to do but give no serious thought to the system in which they want to do them, they speak only magically of "revolution."

This is to say that, like most Gen-Xers, I know and understand your annoyance with "young progressives." We Gen-Xers are generally more lefty than our parents, but not so strident as our younger millennial counterparts (as one might expect given the difference in our ages).

JFLNYC wrote:I don't have a crystal ball any more than anyone else but it's also at least plausible that, because people know him well, Biden's support won't deteriorate significantly because his record, gaffes, etc., are already baked in. It's also plausible that, as Warren becomes better known, her support will either stay the same or deteriorate. It's not a given her support will improve.

As for the whole "enthusiasm" question, I think you may underestimate the enthusiasm we voters over 50 have for a candidate with, at least what we perceive to be, the best chance to beat Trump and the lack of enthusiasm we may have for any candidate we perceive to have a distinctly worse chance of winning. Given that we're the majority of Democrats who vote and who tend to have the money necessary to help a Democrat win, you jeopardize our enthusiasm at your peril.

Here I really agree with TV. The test of electability is the primary. If Warren wins it, despite the structural and starting disadvantages you very correctly summarize here, then she is electable. People who will vote for Warren but not for Biden, I have one message for them: grow up. But people who have their heart set on Biden because he is "electable" but will pull back their money, if not their vote, for Warren, I say - "If you're scared, get a dog."

JUburton wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:So enthusiasm does have a part to play, and enthusiasm derives from personality, newness, but also policy. This is true of Trump: what made him popular isn't some ineffable sense of his charm or his brashness, but his very concrete qualities of saying racist things that people are thinking and making policy proposals that get to that anger, like "The Wall" that "Mexico will pay for."

* * *

All that says Elizabeth Warren to me.

I have no illusions about changing your views, nor those of other young progressives. But certainly you acknowledge that, among Democratic voters, as of right now your views are in a distinct minority, right?

You keep saying this, but it's just not true.

1. Votes for a candidate are not always good proxies for votes on your position choices, due to things like candidate personality, thoughts on 'electability' etc. You can find this in data and anecdotally with all of the 'I don't love Biden but I think he's the best to beat trump' takes you hear.
2a. According to this one (cherry picking) poll, 81% of Democrats favor a national health plan, 91% favor allowing anyone to buy into Medicare. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll- ... uary-2019/
2b. Democrats overwhelmingly support (the admittedly vague concept) of a Green New Deal (90% ish): https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... al-deepens , https://www.dataforprogress.org/the-gre ... is-popular
2c. You can do the same for taxing the rich more, wealth taxes etc.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Supporters of Warren are in the distinct minority right now. That may not mean they oppose her policies but, at least as of this moment, those policies are not carrying the day for her. If we can't agree that those are facts, we can't agree on anything.

If booker isn't going to be a pres nom then every pres candidate should be lining up to get booker as VP