The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Did you just compare American elections to Russian ones? That on its face is absurd. Progressives do not face the systemic oppression that candidates in autocracies do.

Come on, you know why I made that comparison. You're trying not to address what I'm getting at. Either admit your "good enough candidate" argument is flawed, or explain how a "good enough candidate" can overcome any rigged process.

 

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

My only contention re: 2008 is that Clinton was the favorite leading up to the actual primary. Endorsements don't really matter much to me beyond that.

Fine, then propose another metric for establishment support of a candidate.

 

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Incumbency advantage accounted for roughly a 3 point advantage in 2018. Significant but hardly insurmountable. Silver himself thinks it's decreasing as time goes by:

 

Thanks, I didn't realize it had gone down so much. However, having more money is a giant advantage:

 

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Frankly I do think it's ridiculous. The progressives I converse with have a very hard time accepting any criticism, including that they need to get better at messaging and retail politics. To change the system you first have to earn enough power to change the system.

I don't know the progressives you're talking to, but I agree that you need power to change the system.

 

6 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

The problem is no one has shown any evidence of any of this going on heading into 2020, just bitter muttering about how the DNC is thrusting Biden on people. Progressives got the reforms they wanted after 2016 to make things more democratic. Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest the simplest explanation for why they struggle to win elections just lack of broad appeal outside of their own base?

I'm only seeing people worried about what the DNC will do. The DNC broke trust last time around, so they've got to earn it back.

[Danny Bateman]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Come on, you know why I made that comparison. You're trying not to address what I'm getting at. Either admit your "good enough candidate" argument is flawed, or explain how a "good enough candidate" can overcome any rigged process. 

 

Fine, then propose another metric for establishment support of a candidate.

 

Thanks, I didn't realize it had gone down so much. However, having more money is a giant advantage: 

 

I don't know the progressives you're talking to, but I agree that you need power to change the system. 

 

I'm only seeing people worried about what the DNC will do. The DNC broke trust last time around, so they've got to earn it back.

 

I'm not backing off my argument. You proposed a silly parallel that doesn't really refute it at all. What exactly am I supposed to address? I still think given what you just saw in 2016 with Trump running through the field like a buzzsaw shows that parties themselves are woefully inept at shutting down candidates they don't like - if the candidate themselves are good enough.

 

Given the complaints about the DNC pushing Clinton in 2016 because she was more electable (similar complaints currently being lodged against Biden as well), how about polling? It makes sense for Clinton to have more establishment support in 2008 because she was the polling leader until mid-February 2008 and thus seemed like their best chance to win.

 

As for money, it's absolutely correct to say our system is awash with dark money that perverts public policy and gives the wealthy too much power. But if progressives choose to reject Super PACs, which is indeed admirable, they've got to show their grassroots fundraising can be viable in lieu of typical big donor money. We've yet to see that work. Beto had a gigantic grassroots war chest last year and still lost.

 

It's your prerogative to distrust the DNC and I understand why you'd do it. I'm just wary of progressives blaming too much on systemic discrimination against them instead of introspection and reflection about their movements' own flaws and how to address them.

[RedDenver]

38 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I'm not backing off my argument. You proposed a silly parallel that doesn't really refute it at all. What exactly am I supposed to address? I still think given what you just saw in 2016 with Trump running through the field like a buzzsaw shows that parties themselves are woefully inept at shutting down candidates they don't like - if the candidate themselves are good enough.

You made the argument that a candidate can always win if that candidate is just good enough - even in the face of the process being rigged, which I showed is nonsense. You might not like the example, but it disproves your claim. What you really want to argue is that the DNC didn't rig the primary enough to affect the result, which is indeed difficult to prove either way. Establishment Repubs might have opposed Trump, but the RNC didn't try to tip the scales in any way that I'm aware of. The difference is that Jeb Bush wasn't in control of the RNC's finances like Hillary was in control of the DNC's.

 

Quote

Given the complaints about the DNC pushing Clinton in 2016 because she was more electable (similar complaints currently being lodged against Biden as well), how about polling? It makes sense for Clinton to have more establishment support in 2008 because she was the polling leader until mid-February 2008 and thus seemed like their best chance to win.

The issue isn't whether the DNC picked a good reason to push Clinton - it's that the DNC shouldn't push any candidate. And I don't see anything to make me think the DNC pushed Clinton in 2008. You've argued that the establishment pushed Hillary over Obama, but I don't see evidence of that in the polling data.

 

Quote

As for money, it's absolutely correct to say our system is awash with dark money that perverts public policy and gives the wealthy too much power. But if progressives choose to reject Super PACs, which is indeed admirable, they've got to show their grassroots fundraising can be viable in lieu of typical big donor money. We've yet to see that work. Beto had a gigantic grassroots war chest last year and still lost.

I'm not sure what point you're making. The data shows that the candidate with more money wins around 85-90% of the time. Beto showed that grassroots fund-raising can out-raise donors - at least in this one instance. Neither of those candidates were progressives though, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Quote

It's your prerogative to distrust the DNC and I understand why you'd do it. I'm just wary of progressives blaming too much on systemic discrimination against them instead of introspection and reflection about their movements' own flaws and how to address them.

I agree. All groups should be introspective and reflective about their movements. I'm worried that the DNC is stupid enough to try tilting the scale for a candidate or against candidates, which is the best way for the DNC to help Trump win. No matter what they think of the candidates - let the democratic process play itself out.

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You made the argument that a candidate can always win if that candidate is just good enough - even in the face of the process being rigged, which I showed is nonsense. You might not like the example, but it disproves your claim. What you really want to argue is that the DNC didn't rig the primary enough to affect the result, which is indeed difficult to prove either way. Establishment Repubs might have opposed Trump, but the RNC didn't try to tip the scales in any way that I'm aware of. The difference is that Jeb Bush wasn't in control of the RNC's finances like Hillary was in control of the DNC's. 

 

The issue isn't whether the DNC picked a good reason to push Clinton - it's that the DNC shouldn't push any candidate. And I don't see anything to make me think the DNC pushed Clinton in 2008. You've argued that the establishment pushed Hillary over Obama, but I don't see evidence of that in the polling data.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making. The data shows that the candidate with more money wins around 85-90% of the time. Beto showed that grassroots fund-raising can out-raise donors - at least in this one instance. Neither of those candidates were progressives though, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I agree. All groups should be introspective and reflective about their movements. I'm worried that the DNC is stupid enough to try tilting the scale for a candidate or against candidates, which is the best way for the DNC to help Trump win. No matter what they think of the candidates - let the democratic process play itself out.

 

You're taking some liberties with what I actually said. Let me address these point by point.

 

1. I didn't say the better candidate always win but I think they generally do. You did not show my argument was ridiculous. You compared American elections to Russian ones as a counterpoint which I still think is a useless parallel because I'm talking about American elections, not Russian ones.

 

2. You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying about 2008. My only point is that the candidate who was initially considered the favorite to win the nomination ultimately lost because her opponent was the better candidate. Just to be clear, your belief is that Obama was considered more establishment than Clinton in the 2008 primary?

 

3. I was trying to touch on your comments about money winning elections. You've acknowledged that isn't always the case as otherwise we'd have Senator Beto O'Rourke and Jeb! would've won the 2016 GOP nomination. Beto may not be a progressive but he adopted a progressive campaign finance plank in rejecting PAC money. What is the progressive blueprint for raising enough to win and subsequently reforming campaign finance?

 

4. Fair. Frankly I wish the progressive movement would spend less time worrying about what the DNC *might* do and more time getting better at selling their own vision so they could win some actual elections.

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's not unexpected or necessarily unfair that the DNC would have candidates they prefer, and then use its institutional power to promote them.

 

But let's not pretend they're cool just letting the voters decide. 

 

Conventional wisdom is that Hillary's machine was well ahead of the game for 2008 and the DNC was prepared to get behind her early, but Obama saw a window and started draining key talent: the top party pollsters, consultants, field operators and an initial wave of key donors. They were all Dem insiders and players, taking a calculated risk on Obama at the risk of party unity. Why would they do it? Because they knew the Clintons quite well, and really, really preferred to work in a campaign free from the Hillary and Bill circus. It was seen as a betrayal by Hillary, and many of her supporters were livid, but the Obama camp kept it in the family, appointing party warhorses to his administration, including both Biden and Hillary.

 

For 2016, it's Hillary's time. She's paid her dues and added Secretary of State to her resume. No one is going to tell her no, and the DNC can take advantage of a virtually uncontested primary. Except for two things: there are rumors that Biden might jump in. And speculation is that the same people who elected and served Obama still don't covet working on a Hillary campaign and would likely have bolted to Biden and run an Obama 2.0 campaign. Nobody in the DNC or anywhere else wants to tell Hillary this, and the optics are dangerous. An estimated 25% of Hillary's 2008 primary supporters voted for McCain/Palin in the general, and a Biden/Clinton bloodbath might have risked the entire women voter block. Once that decision was made, they're all in on Hillary. So nobody saw Bernie Sanders coming; an admitted socialist with little name recognition, no national machine, and overt c$%kblocking from the DNC gave Clinton far more of a challenge than anyone expected. The thing that energized voters about Sanders -- independence and systemic change -- are the things that terrified the DNC then and now.  

 

It's not conspiracy theory that the DNC, centrist pundits, social media bots, and even CNN and MSNBC have been pushing an anti-Sanders narrative rife with exaggeration and blatant falsehoods. It's just party politics. They have their man, and it's Joe Biden. The voters may still reject Joe for someone else, and the DNC will jump aboard that train, but until then they will attempt to influence the election by punishing some and rewarding others. Hold on....I'm going to show you something......

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I was getting spammed by the DNC and affiliates, and one of the emails asked me to let the DNC know my priorities for the 2020 election. 

 

That seemed only fair. I do have priorities and they should compile them from the rank and file. That's how messaging works. 

 

But since I suspected that no one would actually read my input, and I would simply be hit up for money, I used an obscure email address to respond to the DNC.

 

That was five weeks ago, and here's what my mailbox looks like since then (another nearly identical page not included)

 

 

[Moiraine]

38 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

1. I didn't say the better candidate always win but I think they generally do. You did not show my argument was ridiculous. You compared American elections to Russian ones as a counterpoint which I still think is a useless parallel because I'm talking about American elections, not Russian ones.

 

 

It isn't useless at all, it's perfect. It shows, in a way that's extremely easy and quick for anyone to understand, that losing an election doesn't necessarily mean you were a bad candidate.

[Danny Bateman]

12 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It isn't useless at all, it's perfect. It shows, in a way that's extremely easy and quick for anyone to understand, that losing an election doesn't necessarily mean you were a bad candidate. 

 

Did I say Bernie was a bad candidate?

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Did I say Bernie was a bad candidate?

 

 

It doesn't matter whether you said he was a bad candidate because that specific term isn't important. You're talking about candidates being good enough as if that's the only factor when less than 4 years ago there were serious issues with how the DNC ran their election. This isn't people whining about nothing or seeing something that definitely isn't there. It very well could be there and there are lots of reasons to believe it is. Guy's graphic is pretty telling.

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

 

Frankly I do think it's ridiculous. The progressives I converse with have a very hard time accepting any criticism, including that they need to get better at messaging and retail politics. To change the system you first have to earn enough power to change the system.

 

Messaging is key, and Republicans and their consultants have been a lot better at it the last 20 or so years. Better at demonizing the opponent than selling their own product, but that's part of it. 

 

I think liberals have been outstanding at creating clever Facebook memes, but the Democratic Party itself has been pretty awful at retail politics. If anything, progressives have been better at messaging than the mainline Democrats. Policies that supposedly branded Sanders as too extreme are now entering the Dem mainstream. It's no longer socialized medicine or Single Payer, and suddenly Medicare 4 All is standard platform fodder. Even some Republicans are inching that way. For all the grief given AOC and the Green New Deal, you're going to see that going mainstream, too. Free preschool and college is far less crazy than how the wealthiest country on earth is currently spending its tax dollars; it resonates with a huge cross-section of Americans, and as far as long term economics go, it could have a fantastic return on investment. For years wealth inequity was dismissed as class warfare by the lazy and the Takers, but the causal evidence is compelling and disturbing, forcing moderate Democrats and lobbyist-friendly candidates like Joe Biden to defend themselves to town halls of hard-working Americans less inclined to swallow their bulls#!t.  

 

If you play it safe in order to get elected, in order to change the system, you're not going to get elected. And you weren't going to change the system anyway.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

@Guy Chamberlin Undoubtably the DNC would prefer Biden to Sanders. I don't think anyone disputes that. What is disputed is the extent to which they will put their thumb on the scale to influence the primary for Biden or against Sanders. That's the assertion I initially bristled at and as of yet, there's been little to suggest they're doing so. Your email situation is a bit odd.

 

You may well be right about a concentrated anti-Sanders messaging campaign. I haven't seen it because I don't pay a lick of attention to any of those orgs and groups you mentioned.

 

At the end of the day, everyone who runs for president has unique strengths and faces unique challenges. It remains to be seen whether the progressives can figure out how to overcome their own barriers to success and succeed this time. Here's hoping they find a way to do so.

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

It doesn't matter whether you said he was a bad candidate because that specific term isn't important. You're talking about candidates being good enough as if that's the only factor when less than 4 years ago there were serious issues with how the DNC ran their election. This isn't people whining about nothing or seeing something that definitely isn't there. It very well could be there and there are lots of reasons to believe it is. Guy's graphic is pretty telling. 

 

Let's clear something up: For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of a "good" candidate is one who wins election. Good in this context necessarily implies the ability to win.

 

At the end of the day, the best candidates win elections. Everyone faces their own unique challenges running for president, including lack of establishment support, if you're going to run what amounts to an independent insurgent campaign.

 

I don't particularly care if it's an unpopular opinion, but my personal belief is that Bernie was a good but not great candidate in 2016 who benefited tremendously from a two-person field and a sizable anti-Clinton sentiment amongst voters. But he wasn't good *enough* to beat what we all look back and say was a poor, unpopular candidate in Clinton. It's fine to think Bernie lost because things were rigged. I'll continue to think if he ran a better campaign it wouldn't have mattered.

 

Again, totally your prerogative to worry about what they're going to do this time.

[Danny Bateman]

24 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Messaging is key, and Republicans and their consultants have been a lot better at it the last 20 or so years. Better at demonizing the opponent than selling their own product, but that's part of it.  

 

I think liberals have been outstanding at creating clever Facebook memes, but the Democratic Party itself has been pretty awful at retail politics. If anything, progressives have been better at messaging than the mainline Democrats. Policies that supposedly branded Sanders as too extreme are now entering the Dem mainstream. It's no longer socialized medicine or Single Payer, and suddenly Medicare 4 All is standard platform fodder. Even some Republicans are inching that way. For all the grief given AOC and the Green New Deal, you're going to see that going mainstream, too. Free preschool and college is far less crazy than how the wealthiest country on earth is currently spending its tax dollars; it resonates with a huge cross-section of Americans, and as far as long term economics go, it could have a fantastic return on investment. For years wealth inequity was dismissed as class warfare by the lazy and the Takers, but the causal evidence is compelling and disturbing, forcing moderate Democrats and lobbyist-friendly candidates like Joe Biden to defend themselves to town halls of hard-working Americans less inclined to swallow their bulls#!t.   

 

If you play it safe in order to get elected, in order to change the system, you're not going to get elected. And you weren't going to change the system anyway. 

 

 

I'd probably agree with you that simple, no-nonsense messaging by progressives about their policies are far more effective than moderates trying to get cute threading the perfect needle and offending no one selling theirs. The latter comes off as milquetoast and insincere.

 

I do think some of these ideas have benefited from progressives not being in a position to enact them immediately. People apply much more skepticism to policies when they have a real shot at becoming law and immediately thereafter. Most of these policies are not at that point yet.

 

Seeing as you seem amenable to a Sanders presidency, let me ask you: How does he get any of these policies through Congress? That is what worries me most about a potential Sanders presidency: The potential of another four years of gridlock and failure to whip enough votes to make some of this stuff happen.

[Moiraine]

59 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Let's clear something up: For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of a "good" candidate is one who wins election. Good in this context necessarily implies the ability to win.

 

At the end of the day, the best candidates win elections. 

 

 

This is nonsensical to me and an oversimplification. And it’s especially odd coming from someone who understands what gerrymandering is. There are also policies in place that should be illegal if you support democracy which help certain candidates more than others. Due to these factors, a lesser candidate can win. Which is why Russia, a more extreme example but a good one, was brought up. There are varying degrees of non democratic policies that can lead to good candidates losing. Russia’s are a more extreme case than ours of course but we have our own problems.

 

We need to fight for a system that does elect the best candidates, and right now that isn’t always the case.

 

A good candidate right now, using your definition, can be the one who can schmooze the most donors, who can trick the most voters and maybe luck out and appeal to voters from the correct areas so even if they get a lower % of the vote they can still win. If we go with your definition, none of us should want that to be the way it is, and I hope you don't vote for people based on whether they're good candidates or not.

 

By your definition, Putin and Kim are 2 of the best candidates to have ever lived, and it doesn't matter what kinds of uphill battles their opponents have faced.

[Danny Bateman]

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

This is nonsensical to me and an oversimplification. And it’s especially odd coming from someone who understands what gerrymandering is. There are also policies in place that should be illegal if you support democracy which help certain candidates more than others. Due to these factors, a lesser candidate can win. Which is why Russia, a more extreme example but a good one, was brought up. There are varying degrees of non democratic policies that can lead to good candidates losing. Russia’s are a more extreme case than ours of course but we have our own problems. 

 

We need to fight for a system that does elect the best candidates, and right now that isn’t always the case. 

 

A good candidate right now can be the one who can schmooze the most donors, who can trick the most voters and maybe luck out and appeal to voters from the correct areas so even if they get a lower % of the vote they can still win.  

 

That’s never going to be my definition. 

 

It's just an operational definition so it was clear what I was talking about. But fine. But then you're talking about something different. You're talking about what we should want our candidates to be, and what we should want them to strive for.

 

And I'd agree. You'll get no argument from me about what you're arguing for: You're right.

 

I'm talking about the nuts & bolts of what it currently takes to win an election. How the sausage is made when you peel back the curtain. Personally I don't mind if people don't like hearing it because it sucks to be honest about this stuff. It's pretty messed up. But it is what it is. I'm just being honest about it. Also, a bit pedantic, but you can't gerrymander a national election.