Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

Its funny to me she had to mention how white the two states sanders has won are as if he doesn’t have an incredibly diverse coalition polling very well with latino and black voters. While his main rival so far for older black voters just completely collapsed.

I’d have more confidence in that strategy had it worked in 2016

In 2016 there was a plausible (if you'd been struck on the head by falling masonry) "maybe he'll rise to the office, maybe an outsider is just what we need" argument. And, as has been mentioned ad fucking nauseam, he lost except for 77,000 votes sprinkled across three Midwestern states that nobody is taking for granted this time. Trump 2020 is not Trump 2016, and the only way to completely doom yourself is to act like this is a rerun of four years ago.

But in general I don’t think we can just add up all the centrist support and compare it Bernie’s many people arent really aware of the ideological breakdown in stark manichean contrast. They are just as likely to be voting because they like a candidate’s personality or think they are Electable.

Absolutely the case, think Bernard does well as second choice for Biden voters in particular

Centrist candidate doesnt necessarily mean centrist voter, its more complex than that

I’d have more confidence in that strategy had it worked in 2016

― iatee, Wednesday, February 12, 2020 11:50 AM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The trick, as I recall, is largely about encouraging voters to actually cast votes.

I mean there's an argument to be made that non-voting dems pretty much handed Trump the election. Turnout was not great.

In 2016 there was a plausible (if you'd been struck on the head by falling masonry) "maybe he'll rise to the office, maybe an outsider is just what we need" argument. And, as has been mentioned ad fucking nauseam, he lost except for 77,000 votes sprinkled across three Midwestern states that nobody is taking for granted this time. Trump 2020 is not Trump 2016, and the only way to completely doom yourself is to act like this is a rerun of four years ago.

it’s not a rerun because we’re running against a very strong economy, an incumbent w/ strong party support, all of his scandals have already ‘broken’ and can’t pierce his floor. trump’s awfulness has been normalized for a lot of America.

very strong economy if yer in the stock market

but keep spreading that sunshine

a very strong economy

A very strong stock market. These are not the same thing.

an incumbent w/ strong party support

The remaining Republicans are a death cult, yes. But the number of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans has been spiraling downward since January 2017.

all of his scandals have already ‘broken’ and can’t pierce his floor

This is simply not true.

trump’s awfulness has been normalized for a lot of America.

People are booing this motherfucker at sporting events. Donald Trump doesn't just have a low approval rating. People hate him.

Yes, I think it's more correct to say that Trump's behavior has normalized the behavior of aberrant people who already pretty much behaved like Trump and now just feel that their id has been unleashed.

A very strong stock market.

low unemployment + wage growth

Party support from those who didn't change party affiliation on account of Trump

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/10/trumps-economic-scorecard-3-years-in-office/

Bitcofer, in her second & third tweet:

due to the now trifurcation + of the moderate wing of the party Sanders' small plurality of the high 20s is becoming the winning margin & until & unless that changes down the stretch, he will likely become the nominee. ... This is exactly what happened to the mod faction in 2016

By which she means moderate Republicans, who failed to unite to stop Trump. Who, as we all know, went on to win the presidency by campaigning as the antithesis of moderation. Which seems like an odd analogy to use as an argument against the viability of Sanders.

‘The economy in 2020 is extremely strong’ is not some controversial statement - if you disagree with it because ‘actually, it still sucks to be poor’ then we’re just not talking about the same thing. If you think that the majority of people in the country can’t notice the difference between an economy w/ 10% unemployment and an economy w/ 3.5% unemployment, idk what to say. the contrast is real, and the contrast was recent.

xp

why it's almost as if she was arguing for the viability of sanders

xp

agree that Sanders' run this time around is mirroring Trump's in 2016 and is currently likely to have a similar result. The "moderate"/"sensible" wing of the party doesn't have a strong candidate to rally around, Sanders meanwhile has the enthusiasm of the base and could use it to skate to the nomination with a plurality

xps

Every incumbent President prior to Trump who won re-election with a strong economy had a net positive approval rating.

Trump would be the first to do so with a net negative unless he rebounds.

But history has shown with him that declines and rebounds are always temporary. His post-Mueller rebound was miniscule and short-lived

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/morgan-stanley-dont-assume-a-strong-economy-means-a-trump-reelection.html

lolol

“It’s entirely possible that it’s a coincidence,” Zezas also offered, referring to any such correlation between reelection and the economy.

entirely possible!

should Sanders get the nom there's gonna be a lot of stories about "worried investors" and how the market will tank 3000 points the instant he gets sworn in and I'm guessing that will not help

a lot of stories about "worried investors" and how the market will tank 3000 points the instant he gets sworn in

The usual FUD-mongering: fear, uncertainty & doubt.

one of the earlier instances of the veil dropping for me regarding the 'dispassionate' forces of the market was watching a parade of CEOs and Wall Street goons, after getting bailed out and then subsequently soothed and stroked by Obama and Tim fucking Geithner, come on tv and wring their hands about the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" they had about the administration.

and that's when i realized the market might not be rational, but it's almost definitely racist.

so yeah, there will be a ton of doomsday scenarios floated. and every person who writes one in an op ed section or spouts one on cable tv should be spat on in public for the rest of their natural lives.

because the market is racist, irrational, greedy, emotional, paranoid etc. there will definitely be a dip in the stock market if/when Bernie wins. This will have negative consequences that ripple throughout the economy. I don't see how this prediction is contestable - capitalists are scared of Bernie and will react accordingly.

There’s an incongruity among some Sanders supporters where he’s simultaneously the best shot for radical structural economic change and also anyone afraid of radical structural economic change from Sanders is an idiot fear monger. There’s gaslighting going on but I can’t tell by whom.

I think you may be hallucinating Mordy

Good economic times can be the best times to implement social democratic programs. Might be good for Dems to stress this, although it would also be giving Trump some credit so idk.

a Sanders presidency would be unequivocally bad for certain sectors, no doubt

How many Sanders supporters do you know of who don't want *substantial* structural economic change? "Radical" is a loaded adjective that means different things from nation to nation and era to era, so I'm not using that.

xxp

a Sanders presidency would be unequivocally bad for certain sectors, no doubt

― frogbs, Wednesday, February 12, 2020 1:23 PM (fifty-nine seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

My thoughts & prayers go out to those sectors.

The bipartisan Reagan Revolution of the last 40 years is the radical change I want to roll back.

i guess my point however inartfully expressed was that if Obama made them piss their pants (though i suspect some of this was performative), then trying to placate these scumbags is a sucker's game. and thus centrism is stupid. or something.

xposts

petitioning the thread to refer to Klobuchar as 'Klobocop" from now on

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/03/amy-klobuchar-drug-prosecutions-history/

anyone afraid of radical structural economic change from Sanders is an idiot fear monger

You added an inaccurate and unnecessary "idiot" to your characterization there, mordy. Peddling fear, uncertainty and doubt in regard to the economic consequences of Sanders being elected is without any doubt a form of fear-mongering, made solely for the purpose of stoking whatever fears of radical structural economic change are latent in the electorate.

I would simply point out that the actual economic consequences of Sanders being elected are completely unknown. First, because no one can accurately predict the future of the economy even in times of structural 'stability', because there is no such thing as certainty or stability in our present economy. Predicting the future is a gamble, as one may easily discern by recalling the predictions being peddled in 2006-7. Or today.

Further, the mere election of Sanders would not necessarily result in any kind of radical restructuring of the US economy. Our political system militates against rapid change and the very fact of the US Senate and the present conservatism of the federal judiciary will provide an enormous bulwark against such rapid or radical change.

Floating excessive fear about god knows what might happen if you vote for Sanders is purely political. A measured and reasonable economic argument would be aimed at specific policies, not at a person. Theoretically, elections are the proper venue for airing such arguments, but you and I know that they never are. What we'll get is what we always get, a little simplistic policy debate, well-mixed of ad hominems and fear-mongering. Try to tell me otherwise. I'll listen.

Mordy I think some of that gaslighting is a pissed-off reaction to half a century of gaslighting from the center and right, whereby the only “radical structural change” identified as such is progressive reforms from left-of-center. Meanwhile, the oligarchs and their enablers can eviscerate unions, change the tax system from progressive to de facto regressive, deregulate the financial sector, bail it out when necessary, divert trillions of taxpayer dollars into the black hole of the defense industry, divert more trillions into wars, crank up the surveillance state, eliminate habeas corpus, bestow human rights and liberties unto corporations, segregate and incarcerate and cage citizens who happen to have darker skin, etc etc , and none of this gets called radical anything or structural anything but is simply t be accepted as the natural order of things... not that far from divinely ordained when you think about it... and the worst are not the frothing MAGA types who at least feel like something viscerally existential is at stake or otherwise make outward displays of aggression, of being at war (don’t tread on me , etc), but the bland centrists who tolerate 90%!of the above with equanimity and reserve their outrage to the most blatant breaches of constitutional and moral decorum from DJT, while dividing their sense of alarm equally between said individual on the one hand and the “radical left “ on the other, having lost all semblance of Overton drift after these 40+ years of neoliberal revolution.

warren didn't put on some glasses and position herself as a 'wonky politician' for branding purposes. she was an acclaimed academic who happened to get into politics.

Imo, the narrative that Sanders has dreams and ideology while Warren has plans largely does come down to branding.

*reserve their outrage *for*

*having lost all *sense* of Overton drift..,

Sorry I wrote this in a rush

general question. is it concerning that the plurality of democratic voters (47.1%) are supporting the moderate-ish candidates, vs only 35.2% for the Sanders+Warren?

LEFT: 35.2%
Sanders: 22.3%
Warren: 12.9%

MODERATE: 47.1%
Biden: 20.1%
Bloomberg: 13.1%
Buttigieg: 9.6%
Klobuchar: 4.3%

???: 3.5%
Steyer: 1.9%
Gabbard: 1.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

i realize the counterpoint is that once the candidate is chosen, most will gravitate toward them. in 2016, of course, a bunch of bernie supporters ended up voting for clinton in the end.

my rose-tinted take is that there are just more moderates in the race

but i guess what i'm thinking is that if three of the four mods dropped out, would it essentially be one of them at 47% vs sanders at ~25%

Again thats similar to Trump’s initial primary numbers iirc

again? sorry if i missed conversation upthread, work has been a nightmare

fwiw i'm not responding to anything said upthread

i feel like if all the other candidates dropped out bar sanders and the mayor then bernie would lose

he needs the centrist vote split

the theory (one i also sorta buy) is that much like trump had the largest base in a highly divided field and the opponents didn't consolidate quickly enough to offer an alternative b4 the delegate lead got out of hand bernie is potentially benefiting from a similar set of circumstances

the mayor(s)?

is it concerning

Speaking purely as someone who has never seen his early first choice gain the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, unless you count McGovern, who I couldn't vote for because I turned 18 the day after the 1972 election, I have given up on being 'concerned' by the nature of US national elections. They are as little under my control as acts of God or the forces of nature.