Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

by **JUburton** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:35:52

JFLNYC wrote:
JUburton wrote:If anyone can cause the left to sit at home on election day, it's probably Bloomberg.

Anyone on the left who does sit home is a petulant idiot who deserves 4 more years of Trump.

see: Bloomberg's net favorability on page 2

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 21120.pdf/

If these are right (large if!) it may be over after Super Tuesday :praisehands

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:38:20

JUburton wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
JUburton wrote:If anyone can cause the left to sit at home on election day, it's probably Bloomberg.

Anyone on the left who does sit home is a petulant idiot who deserves 4 more years of Trump.
Not saying it's right but it may be true. And I mean the far left of course.

I think here is what JH was saying and what I was getting at the other day when I thanked him on behalf of Bernie

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 2893734912

Yeah. I understand why he's running and his argument for being president and whatnot. I think in running he is making what he wants to prevent more likely to happen rather than less likely to happen.

It's like the Democrats watched the GOP primary in 2016 and decided to reenact every single mistake.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:41:54

Werthless wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Augustus wrote:After impeachment, Trump has 94% approval among Republicans. Of that 6%, some are those who are "concerned" about his behavior but will vote for him anyway, and others are those who will skip the presidential election or vote third party, but never vote for a Democrat. Please forget about these people. This is the bizarre 2004 mentality that still infects this political party. It leads you to things like picking Tim Kaine as a running mate and not campaigning in Wisconsin.

Groups the Democrats should actually be targeting:
-2 time Obama voters who broke for Trump
-African American and young voters who stayed home in 2016

This is a bit of a strawman. Dems shouldn't focus on winning over Republicans as a whole per se, but picking Trump's best poll among Republicans to illustrate outreach to the center right is useless is not gonna do a lot for your point.

People who voted Romney/Clinton or Romney/Johnson and Dem in the midterms or sat out the midterms are a group Democrats should care about. And these are not going to be people who like Bernie. These are the people who flipped to Dems in suburban districts in Michigan and Georgia and Pennsylvania and a governor's race in Wisconsin and won a Senate seat in Arizona. Not saying if you think the policy outcomes from nominating Bernie are that much better than those if you nominate Biden that it's not worth the risk. But it's a real group.

I 100% wanted Hillary to win in 2016 and almost literally puked when the returns started rolling in. I am personally meaningless as I live in DC and will be voting 3rd party regardless, but I'd prefer Biden/Buttiegieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg as president to Trump, but would pretty fucking easily root for Trump over Sanders. I'm not going to pretend I'm a useful part of the American electorate since I hate everyone, but I do think Bernie would run behind Biden or Klobuchar in Chester County or Oakland County and it might make a difference.

What will be will be, but people talking up Sanders' electability case in a general election are for the most part supporting him in the primary and making post hoc excuses for doing so.

I think Sanders is likable and authentic. I think he'll do well with low information voters, especially as he has more opportunities to explain his social support plans against Trump's plans to cut these programs.

He's also going to have billions of dollars dropped on his head about how he's a socialist who will double people's taxes to pay for his crap.

Will it matter? I don't know. Maybe nothing matters.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:42:02

jerseyhoya wrote:
JUburton wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
JUburton wrote:If anyone can cause the left to sit at home on election day, it's probably Bloomberg.

Anyone on the left who does sit home is a petulant idiot who deserves 4 more years of Trump.
Not saying it's right but it may be true. And I mean the far left of course.

I think here is what JH was saying and what I was getting at the other day when I thanked him on behalf of Bernie

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 2893734912

Yeah. I understand why he's running and his argument for being president and whatnot. I think in running he is making what he wants to prevent more likely to happen rather than less likely to happen.

It's like the Democrats watched the GOP primary in 2016 and decided to reenact every single mistake.

You could be right but he could also have foreseen Joe’s fall and decided the other moderate options were suboptimal.

by **da_bad_ass** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:42:56

jerseyhoya wrote:
Werthless wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Augustus wrote:After impeachment, Trump has 94% approval among Republicans. Of that 6%, some are those who are "concerned" about his behavior but will vote for him anyway, and others are those who will skip the presidential election or vote third party, but never vote for a Democrat. Please forget about these people. This is the bizarre 2004 mentality that still infects this political party. It leads you to things like picking Tim Kaine as a running mate and not campaigning in Wisconsin.

Groups the Democrats should actually be targeting:
-2 time Obama voters who broke for Trump
-African American and young voters who stayed home in 2016

This is a bit of a strawman. Dems shouldn't focus on winning over Republicans as a whole per se, but picking Trump's best poll among Republicans to illustrate outreach to the center right is useless is not gonna do a lot for your point.

People who voted Romney/Clinton or Romney/Johnson and Dem in the midterms or sat out the midterms are a group Democrats should care about. And these are not going to be people who like Bernie. These are the people who flipped to Dems in suburban districts in Michigan and Georgia and Pennsylvania and a governor's race in Wisconsin and won a Senate seat in Arizona. Not saying if you think the policy outcomes from nominating Bernie are that much better than those if you nominate Biden that it's not worth the risk. But it's a real group.

I 100% wanted Hillary to win in 2016 and almost literally puked when the returns started rolling in. I am personally meaningless as I live in DC and will be voting 3rd party regardless, but I'd prefer Biden/Buttiegieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg as president to Trump, but would pretty fucking easily root for Trump over Sanders. I'm not going to pretend I'm a useful part of the American electorate since I hate everyone, but I do think Bernie would run behind Biden or Klobuchar in Chester County or Oakland County and it might make a difference.

What will be will be, but people talking up Sanders' electability case in a general election are for the most part supporting him in the primary and making post hoc excuses for doing so.

I think Sanders is likable and authentic. I think he'll do well with low information voters, especially as he has more opportunities to explain his social support plans against Trump's plans to cut these programs.

He's also going to have billions of dollars dropped on his head about how he's a socialist who will double people's taxes to pay for his crap.

Will it matter? I don't know. Maybe nothing matters.

chaos reigns

by **da_bad_ass** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:43:31

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:49:20

I'm really hoping for a surprise result for Klobuchar tonight.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:55:42

jerseyhoya wrote:
Augustus wrote:After impeachment, Trump has 94% approval among Republicans. Of that 6%, some are those who are "concerned" about his behavior but will vote for him anyway, and others are those who will skip the presidential election or vote third party, but never vote for a Democrat. Please forget about these people. This is the bizarre 2004 mentality that still infects this political party. It leads you to things like picking Tim Kaine as a running mate and not campaigning in Wisconsin.

Groups the Democrats should actually be targeting:
-2 time Obama voters who broke for Trump
-African American and young voters who stayed home in 2016

This is a bit of a strawman. Dems shouldn't focus on winning over Republicans as a whole per se, but picking Trump's best poll among Republicans to illustrate outreach to the center right is useless is not gonna do a lot for your point.

People who voted Romney/Clinton or Romney/Johnson and Dem in the midterms or sat out the midterms are a group Democrats should care about. And these are not going to be people who like Bernie. These are the people who flipped to Dems in suburban districts in Michigan and Georgia and Pennsylvania and a governor's race in Wisconsin and won a Senate seat in Arizona. Not saying if you think the policy outcomes from nominating Bernie are that much better than those if you nominate Biden that it's not worth the risk. But it's a real group.

I 100% wanted Hillary to win in 2016 and almost literally puked when the returns started rolling in. I am personally meaningless as I live in DC and will be voting 3rd party regardless, but I'd prefer Biden/Buttiegieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg as president to Trump, but would pretty fucking easily root for Trump over Sanders. I'm not going to pretend I'm a useful part of the American electorate since I hate everyone, but I do think Bernie would run behind Biden or Klobuchar in Chester County or Oakland County and it might make a difference.

What will be will be, but people talking up Sanders' electability case in a general election are for the most part supporting him in the primary and making post hoc excuses for doing so.

The problem with this line of thinking is that to me, anyway, it is a very 2016 line of thinking. Running against Trump the candidate, sure, think of his personal character weaknesses, and try to run somebody who is both competent and significantly less objectionable.

But in 2020, Trump is the sitting president. He has an economy that is running a sub-4 percent unemployment rate, we're in the third straight year of 2-3% GDP growth, interest rates are below 2% so inflation is a non-factor, and I just heard an economist on NPR this morning say that those factors that were producing a possible recession scare have all but evaporated, and things look rosy for the next run of time, principally because while, yes, the government is running trillion dollar deficits and interest rates are being kept low, nevertheless there is not a lot of borrowing going on, in historic terms. That is, there is no sector of the economy that is excessively leveraged just now, and it is usually the bursting of such a leveraged situation that prefigures economic downturn.

All of this is to say: you don't have the line of attack available to you that is most effective against a sitting president. People have jobs, consumer confidence is at a reasonable level, things may not be great in rust belt areas, but they aren't getting demonstrably worse right now either.

And so: if you are a moderate, who presumptively wants to stay the course economically with maybe some tweaks at the margins, what do you have? The Iran thing? Sure, it was dumb, but in the end we are not war with Iran, so in the mind of the average voter, it's a non-issue. The China tariff thing? Doesn't effect enough people and is too obscure anyway. The impeachment? He's not guilty, that was a total disaster.

Well, health care. Certainly a source of anxiety for big, election-winning numbers of Americans. But a moderate's message is going to be something like: "We'll make minor changes and preserve what we have otherwise!" Hardly an inspiring rallying-cry for a mid-term presidential election, which usually feature lower turnout. But you need turn out to win.

In an economy going like this, moderates have no sharp message, other than, "Tsk, tsk, Trump is ignorant/a sonofabitch/both, we should all be ashamed of ourselves." Only when has that message ever worked in American politics? To the extent it was tried with George W. Bush, it failed (the cries of, "But he's dumb!" only served to paint Democrats as small and petty). People shrugged their shoulders and laughed at Bill Clinton's "I'm a very naughty boy" act, because the money was rolling in. Folks might care about a person's character and weigh it in whether to make the person president, but if all those things that Trump is were enough to prevent people voting for him - he would have lost in 2016. If the Dems had run a better candidate, not subject to many of the same issues, he would have lost in 2016. He didn't, and now that ship is sailed. He is the president of the United States, and he therefore by definition has the character requisite to be president of the United States. All arguments to the contrary died on November 8, 2016.

Moderates lack an inspiring message in an election where turnout will be key, and "Tsk tsk" ain't getting it done.

Only chance now is a strong, clear alternative that inspires a turnout wave in a moment in the cycle (president seeking second term), in an economic situation (things pretty good, people not angry), that historically strongly tends to lead to lower turnout. That can only come from the left in the Democratic Party. Even that may well not work, but to think that, "I'll make sure everything stays pretty much the same, but I'll be polite about it" is a winning message in 2020, that is folly.

You need something that is genuinely different, and exciting. That will inspire young people and other folks who normally don't vote to vote. It's how Trump won, and it's the only way he will lose.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 13:13:21

I totally agree that you can’t rerun 2016 but that leads me to an entirely different conclusion. I think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016 but likely won’t in 2020. With the economy humming along in a capitalist country it makes no sense to me that a majority of Americans are going to say: “Hey! Our capitalist economy is going great, let’s make a hard left turn and elect a self-described Democratic Socialist for the first time in our history!”

Just can’t see it. But I can see people saying: “Let’s keep the good things going but get rid of the crazy, fascist, Russian-controlled, authoritarian jerk who’s doing it.”

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 13:26:02

da_bad_ass wrote:

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 13:34:09

JFLNYC wrote:I totally agree that you can’t rerun 2016 but that leads me to an entirely different conclusion. I think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016 but likely won’t in 2020. With the economy humming along in a capitalist country it makes no sense to me that a majority of Americans are going to say: “Hey! Our capitalist economy is going great, let’s make a hard left turn and elect a self-described Democratic Socialist for the first time in our history!”

Just can’t see it. But I can see people saying: “Let’s keep the good things going but get rid of the crazy, fascist, Russian-controlled, authoritarian jerk who’s doing it.”

This is why I think Elizabeth Warren is best, because she combines the best of both messages (let's take a hard look at making such a rich economy work more broadly for the greatest number of people, and also let's have someone sane and pleasant in charge), but what can I say, the wind ain't blowing that way. And if I have to pick between "stay the course but more nicely" or "let's do more for more people" as a central message, I have to go with the latter. If only because there is no evidence that dime-store moralizing about Trump is a winning hand in an economy this good.

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 13:38:05

Regarding Bernie’s electability against Trump (take these numbers with a Dead Sea volume of salt)

Using RCP averages available

Arizona is Trump + 5.0 (4 polls, most recent is Trump +1.0 from 01/04/20)

Florida is tied (3 polls, most recent is Bernie +6 from 01/12/20)

Michigan is Bernie +6.7 (4 polls, most recent is Bernie +6 from 01/12/20)

Pennsylvania is Bernie +3.7 (3 polls ending in 11/2019, most recent poll is Bernie +5 from 11/09/19)

Wisconsin is Bernie +2.0 (3 polls, most recent is Bernie +1.0 from 01/12/20)

by **td11** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 14:08:42

The amount of open and brazen corruption at DOJ right now is breathtaking

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 14:25:43

td11 wrote:The amount of open and brazen corruption at DOJ right now is breathtaking

Yeppers. Trump said "Jump":

@realDonaldTrump
This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!
1:48 AM · Feb 11, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

and the DOJ asked "How high":

The Justice Department will backtrack on its request that longtime Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone get up to nine years in prison, a senior department official said Tuesday, contradicting its own federal prosecutors in a highly unusual and politically charged move.

by **The B1G Piece** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 14:48:42

td11 wrote:The amount of open and brazen corruption at DOJ right now is breathtaking

It is absolutely ridiculous. I love when Trump crosses over from the president to citizen in plain sight.

by **JUburton** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 15:06:11

At least the judge gets to choose the sentence.

by **Bucky** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 15:08:04

is it a TRUMP judge or an OBUMMER judge

by **swishnicholson** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 15:23:03

Bucky wrote:is it a TRUMP judge or an OBUMMER judge

can't wait for the Selection Night reality show.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 15:42:32

jerseyhoya wrote:
JUburton wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
JUburton wrote:If anyone can cause the left to sit at home on election day, it's probably Bloomberg.

Anyone on the left who does sit home is a petulant idiot who deserves 4 more years of Trump.
Not saying it's right but it may be true. And I mean the far left of course.

I think here is what JH was saying and what I was getting at the other day when I thanked him on behalf of Bernie

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 2893734912

Yeah. I understand why he's running and his argument for being president and whatnot. I think in running he is making what he wants to prevent more likely to happen rather than less likely to happen.

It's like the Democrats watched the GOP primary in 2016 and decided to reenact every single mistake.

This I definitely agree with, in terms of analysis. It's clear that Biden + Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Bloomberg > Sanders + Warren. Why the four on the one side of that equation can't get it the fuck together I don't know. In all honesty Klobuchar is the best of that group, and maybe that's the problem. Too many male egos.

by **JUburton** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 16:22:44

At least the democratic primaries aren't WTA. Might not have Trump today if they allocated as proportionally as democratic ones do.

Archived

Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?

Re: Politics: What’s so Super about Tuesday?