The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Danny Bateman]

13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yeah, I have that fear as well. Biden is the candidate most likely to get beat by Trump IMO. But we'll have to wait and see.

 

No. The DNC gave up the right to the benefit of the doubt after the shenanigans in 2016.

 

You're right that Biden is indeed the frontrunner in the polling and it's harder to force an outcome with so many candidates. Those are both different than the DNC trying to force a preferred candidate versus being an impartial arbiter. Let's see what the DNC does, but things like a gathering to discuss stopping Bernie don't give me a good feeling that they're going to let democracy play out this time either.

 

What mechanism exactly could the DNC use to force a candidate on people?

 

In 2008 the establishment did not want a young change candidate In Obama to win the nomination over the more experience Hillary Clinton. In 2016 the RNC DEFINITELY did not want Donald Trump to win their nomination. And yet both of them appealed to voters and won.

 

I agree with a lot of progressive policies. But they won very few of the seats that flipped the House last year. At some point don't progressives have to actually win elections or accept that it's lack of appeal rather than systemic sabotage keeping them down?

 

If Bernie truly is what America needs in response to Trumpism, he should rise to the top of the pack either way.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

What mechanism exactly could the DNC use to force a candidate on people?

 

In 2008 the establishment did not want a young change candidate In Obama to win the nomination over the more experience Hillary Clinton. In 2016 the RNC DEFINITELY did not want Donald Trump to win their nomination. And yet both of them appealed to voters and won.

 

I agree with a lot of progressive policies. But they won very few of the seats that flipped the House last year. At some point don't progressives have to actually win elections or accept that it's lack of appeal rather than systemic sabotage keeping them down?

See the Dems in 2016.

 

And....your second paragraph is very valid.  

[Ratt Mhule]

50 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

What mechanism exactly could the DNC use to force a candidate on people?

 

In 2008 the establishment did not want a young change candidate In Obama to win the nomination over the more experience Hillary Clinton. In 2016 the RNC DEFINITELY did not want Donald Trump to win their nomination. And yet both of them appealed to voters and won.

 

I agree with a lot of progressive policies. But they won very few of the seats that flipped the House last year. At some point don't progressives have to actually win elections or accept that it's lack of appeal rather than systemic sabotage keeping them down?

 

If Bernie truly is what America needs in response to Trumpism, he should rise to the top of the pack either way.

 

Mainstream media (TV and newspaper)

Polls that over-represent a certain age group (see CNN polls)

Behind the scenes meetings to keep certain candidates down

Commercials that bring up right-wing talking points to certain candidates policy proposals

Donations from corporate PACs for certain candidates

Keeping people who are polling at 0% to stay in the race in order to make sure no candidate reaches 50% of the delegates so super delegates comes into play

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Mainstream media (TV and newspaper) 

Polls that over-represent a certain age group (see CNN polls) 

Behind the scenes meetings to keep certain candidates down

Commercials that bring up right-wing talking points to certain candidates policy proposals

Donations from corporate PACs for certain candidates 

Keeping people who are polling at 0% to stay in the race in order to make sure no candidate reaches 50% of the delegates so super delegates comes into play 

 

The DNC does not control the mainstream media.

 

Polls are what they are. Read the crosstabs to understand who was sampled and take them for what they're worth. Do not unskew polls.

 

The DNC has had no such meetings. The ones mentioned in RedDenver's article were donors and party leaders and we don't know those meetings were explicitly devised to discuss how to defeat Bernie.

 

The DNC does not produce commercials.

 

The DNC does not allot PAC donations.

 

I thought they were supposed to support all candidates who want to run equally? What difference should polling make? Talking about convincing non-viable candidates to drop out sounds a lot like Clinton wanting Bernie to drop out in 2016.

[Danny Bateman]

Internal polling is usually 5-6 points more favorable for a candidate than public polling.

 

That Trump's internal polling shows him losing in Rust Belt states he barely won in 2016 speaks volumes about how vulnerable he is in those crucial states next year.
 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

What mechanism exactly could the DNC use to force a candidate on people?

Really? Donna Brazille - the chair of the DNC - even said as much:

Quote

 

Hillary Clinton's campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton's campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign.

It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."

"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile wrote. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

In 2008 the establishment did not want a young change candidate In Obama to win the nomination over the more experience Hillary Clinton.

 

In 2016 the RNC DEFINITELY did not want Donald Trump to win their nomination. And yet both of them appealed to voters and won.

What? Is there any evidence that the establishment didn't want Obama? Obama had more establishment endorsements than Hillary did. Note that the DNC didn't interfere to try to help Clinton. And the RNC didn't try to stop Trump. Both times the parties let the voters decide.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

I agree with a lot of progressive policies. But they won very few of the seats that flipped the House last year. At some point don't progressives have to actually win elections or accept that it's lack of appeal rather than systemic sabotage keeping them down?

A lot more non-progressives ran than progressives, so I'd like to see the data to backup this claim that progressives aren't winning elections. Keep in mind that the two biggest factors in winning an election are incumbency and having more money, so it'd be interesting to see how progressives and non-progressives compare considering those metrics.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

If Bernie truly is what America needs in response to Trumpism, he should rise to the top of the pack either way.

I agree Bernie needs to rise to the top if he's the candidate to beat Trump, but I don't agree with the "either way" stance. If the process is tilted or rigged, then it's ridiculous to expect someone to always be able to overcome that. If the DNC puts their finger on the scale instead of remaining impartial and letting their voters decide, then they deserve to lose to Trump again.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The DNC is also synonymous with the unofficial Democratic party elite — a collection of people who wield disproportionate influence and sometimes in a thuggish manner. The voters can and do over-ride both Party elites sometimes, but they are great at sowing discontent among people they don't like and channeling millions in fundraising to the people they want. Between blackballing Jay Inslee and threatening anyone who helps a Democrat challenge an incumbent Democrat, the DNC has proven it's tone deaf to any lessons of the last four years. They are all in on Joe Biden -- the total party insider -- and simply want the nomination wrapped up before the primaries even begin. 

 

This was written by a Sanders supporter with a obvious axe to grind, but it's an axe worth grinding:

 

https://truthout.org/articles/will-democratic-party-elites-dictate-its-primaries-again/

[Danny Bateman]

48 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Really? Donna Brazille - the chair of the DNC - even said as much:

 

 

What? Is there any evidence that the establishment didn't want Obama? Obama had more establishment endorsements than Hillary did. Note that the DNC didn't interfere to try to help Clinton. And the RNC didn't try to stop Trump. Both times the parties let the voters decide. 

 

A lot more non-progressives ran than progressives, so I'd like to see the data to backup this claim that progressives aren't winning elections. Keep in mind that the two biggest factors in winning an election are incumbency and having more money, so it'd be interesting to see how progressives and non-progressives compare considering those metrics.

 

I agree Bernie needs to rise to the top if he's the candidate to beat Trump, but I don't agree with the "either way" stance. If the process is tilted or rigged, then it's ridiculous to expect someone to always be able to overcome that. If the DNC puts their finger on the scale instead of remaining impartial and letting their voters decide, then they deserve to lose to Trump again.

 

Again, as shady as that is, if Bernie was a good enough candidate that was able to appeal to enough people, he would've won anyway. He wasn't and he didn't. And that was 2016. That is exactly what the type of reforms pushed by Bernie supporters were devised to prevent this go around.

 

Of course there's evidence. That Clinton went into the 2008 primary as the clear favorite is common knowledge. Endorsements are not a good metric because they would heavily skew towards Obama once it became clear he was going to win. Do you have any actual evidence the DNC is "not letting the voters decide?"

 

Here's a FiveThirtyEight article showing that Our Revolution and Bernie endorsed candidates did comparatively poorly versus other endorsements. And another article showing that progressives did not help flip many districts red to blue in the midterms. There were some impressive specific winners but progressives on the whole need to show they can win in more places that aren't already dark blue districts.

 

I find it equally ridiculous that progressives are preemptively complaining about the process being rigged instead of just going and winning the damn thing.

[TGHusker]

GOP dis-information campaign on Biden -  he may be sick.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-stars-begin-pushing-091236230.html

 

 

Quote

 

One month after Joe Biden announced his run for president, several Fox News stars have already begun quietly pushing rumors that the 76-year-old ex-veep is in poor health.

Since the end of May, Fox Business Network and Fox News star Lisa “Kennedy” Montgomery and Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity have speculated on-air, on at least four separate occasions, that the current Democratic presidential frontrunner is secretly dealing with health issues, often comparing his condition to illness-related conspiracy theories the network pushed about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

The Biden rumor-mongering seemingly began May 29, during the broadcast of Fox News’ afternoon gabfest The Five. While assessing Biden’s candidacy, Kennedy claimed to know Democratic operatives engaged in a whisper campaign about Biden’s health.

“He is much more like Hillary Clinton, because if you talk to Democrats, who are working for different campaigns, all of the aggressive gossip whisperers—and this is where the action is happening in terms of opposition research—it’s people having a few drinks at a bar and whispering, ‘You know there is something wrong with the former vice president,’” she claimed. “But that’s what they are actively doing right now. And it is surprising because they are concerned with taking Biden down and getting their candidate out there.”

Co-host Jesse Watters, an avid Trump booster, pressed Kennedy to elaborate. “Don’t do it,” co-host Greg Gutfeld joked to Kennedy, acknowledging the danger in openly speculating about Biden being sick.

The innuendo seemed to go over the head of Watters, however, as he took it upon himself to explain “the gossip” about Biden as involving his support from black voters. Gutfeld laughed, remarking: “I don’t think that’s what Kennedy meant.”

“I was thinking more along the lines of Hillary Clinton having a lumpy overcoat in 85-degree weather,” Kennedy explained, invoking a popular 2016 right-wing conspiracy theory fixated on a photo of Clinton wearing a wool jacket with a lump on the back while campaigning in warm weather.

“He looks healthy to me,” Watters—surprisingly—replied.

In the news business, it is considered irresponsible to spread baseless, potentially damaging rumors about public figures. Even Fox News briefly suspended Judge Andrew Napolitano in early 2017 after he made the unfounded claim on-air that British officials helped President Obama spy on the Trump campaign. Beyond news personalities, the American Medical Association considers it wholly unethical for physicians to speculate on public officials’ health without having personally examined them.

Nevertheless, early last week, while hosting her eponymous Fox Business Network show, Kennedy suggested Biden’s campaign staff may want to keep him “off a main stage” because he says “stupid things and he slurs,” adding that Biden “does look very tired.”

The following evening on her program, Kennedy went even further, once again invoking the conspiracy theory about Clinton’s overcoat to suggest Biden could be viewed as being in poor health.

“I think that it is a good move on Bernie’s part comparing Joe Biden to Hillary,” she said about Sanders saying that, in possibly picking Biden, Democrats might make “the same mistake” they did in nominating Clinton in 2016.

Sanders was referring specifically to how, in his estimation, there was and is a lack of energy and enthusiasm around both “establishment” candidates. And yet Kennedy suggested the comparison was health-related. “The more damage that [comparison] does, you go, ‘You know we haven’t seen Joe a lot, maybe he has hidden health issues, is always wearing an overcoat.’”

That same evening, during his top-rated prime-time Fox News show, Hannity—who regularly echoes Trump in calling the former vice president “Sleepy Joe”—also referenced Clinton to speculate about Biden’s health.

“Joe Biden’s tired,” he declared. “He does not have the energy for this. He’s not up for this challenge. They’re already hiding him like they hid Hillary. They don’t want him out there.”

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The DNC is also synonymous with the unofficial Democratic party elite — a collection of people who wield disproportionate influence and sometimes in a thuggish manner. The voters can and do over-ride both Party elites sometimes, but they are great at sowing discontent among people they don't like and channeling millions in fundraising to the people they want. Between blackballing Jay Inslee and threatening anyone who helps a Democrat challenge an incumbent Democrat, the DNC has proven it's tone deaf to any lessons of the last four years. They are all in on Joe Biden -- the total party insider -- and simply want the nomination wrapped up before the primaries even begin.  

 

This was written by a Sanders supporter with a obvious axe to grind, but it's an axe worth grinding:

 

https://truthout.org/articles/will-democratic-party-elites-dictate-its-primaries-again/

 

This was an unmitigated hatchet job against Biden and touting of the strengths of Bernie and by extension, Warren. I'm fine with that as long as we're clear about what it is.

 

I don't find anything odd about an organization not allowing candidates to dictate specific debates. They probably want to cover as many topics as possible rather than devoting an entire debate to climate change. Here's hoping Inslee gets plenty of time to make that case regardless. It's also not odd that they'd defend an incumbent, although I hope the anti-choice guy you're talking about in Illinois loses.

 

I do think it's worth pointing out that Sanders himself has his own flaws which perhaps are preventing him from merely vaulting into first place over what apparently is a terribly weak, awful candidate as Biden.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Again, as shady as that is, if Bernie was a good enough candidate that was able to appeal to enough people, he would've won anyway. He wasn't and he didn't. And that was 2016. That is exactly what the type of reforms pushed by Bernie supporters were devised to prevent this go around.

This is just a ridiculous argument. Take an extreme example to disprove the point: are Putin's opponents simply not good enough politicians to win against him or is that system rigged? Now obviously it's not anywhere near as rigged as that, but it shows that you're "good enough candidate" argument is not enough by itself. Whether the changes in the primary process are enough remains to be seen.

 

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Of course there's evidence. That Clinton went into the 2008 primary as the clear favorite is common knowledge. Endorsements are not a good metric because they would heavily skew towards Obama once it became clear he was going to win. Do you have any actual evidence the DNC is "not letting the voters decide?"

Here's a timeline of Obama's campaign: https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/june/obama_candidacy/obama_timeline_04.html

Note that he started out fundraising Hillary in June of 2007, half a year before the first primary.

Also, Hillary was doing historically poorly in endorsements in 2007, which was again before Obama started winning:

Quote

Their data shows that though Clinton topped Obama and Edwards in weighted endorsements, her total of 45 percent was rather low — in contrast to Al Gore's 82 percent in 2000, Bill Clinton's quite high 70 percent in the 1992 open contest, and even Walter Mondale's 56 percent in 1984. The party had not unanimously lined up behind Clinton — far from it. This left an opening for a challenger.

 

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Do you have any actual evidence the DNC is "not letting the voters decide?"

I'm wary of them doing it, but I'm not claiming the DNC has done it yet.

 

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Here's a FiveThirtyEight article showing that Our Revolution and Bernie endorsed candidates did comparatively poorly versus other endorsements.

Note that the article also did not account for the two major factors I previously noted: incumbency and money. Also:

Quote

However, there are several caveats: First, we don’t know which way the causation runs. The Democratic establishment is probably purposefully lining up behind candidates who were already the strongest in their field. Second, “establishment” isn’t a synonym for “moderate,” so the success of establishment candidates doesn’t necessarily mean that progressives are losing.

 

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

And another article showing that progressives did not help flip many districts red to blue in the midterms. There were some impressive specific winners but progressives on the whole need to show they can win in more places that aren't already dark blue districts.

That's a good article showing that the progressives didn't directly win, but the article also points out that the progressive candidates helped with getting turnout up to help the moderates win.

 

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I find it equally ridiculous that progressives are preemptively complaining about the process being rigged instead of just going and winning the damn thing.

Yeah, it's ridiculous to be cautious of something that happened in the previous primary. I mean, why were there process changes if there was nothing to worry about? Now the question is whether those changes will result in a more impartial DNC or not.

[Moiraine]

48 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Again, as shady as that is, if Bernie was a good enough candidate that was able to appeal to enough people, he would've won anyway. He wasn't and he didn't. And that was 2016. That is exactly what the type of reforms pushed by Bernie supporters were devised to prevent this go around.

 

Of course there's evidence. That Clinton went into the 2008 primary as the clear favorite is common knowledge. Endorsements are not a good metric because they would heavily skew towards Obama once it became clear he was going to win. Do you have any actual evidence the DNC is "not letting the voters decide?"

 

Here's a FiveThirtyEight article showing that Our Revolution and Bernie endorsed candidates did comparatively poorly versus other endorsements. And another article showing that progressives did not help flip many districts red to blue in the midterms. There were some impressive specific winners but progressives on the whole need to show they can win in more places that aren't already dark blue districts.

 

I find it equally ridiculous that progressives are preemptively complaining about the process being rigged instead of just going and winning the damn thing.

 

 

 

Your last paragraph makes you sound like a Trump voter complaining about the Russia investigation. “They’re just mad Hilary lost.”

 

The process should be fair and it wasn’t last time. They have the right to run it how they want but imo it should be more democratic. Don’t fund or back one candidate over the others and make another stupid choice, and don’t have super delegates. 

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is just a ridiculous argument. Take an extreme example to disprove the point: are Putin's opponents simply not good enough politicians to win against him or is that system rigged? Now obviously it's not anywhere near as rigged as that, but it shows that you're "good enough candidate" argument is not enough by itself. Whether the changes in the primary process are enough remains to be seen. 

 

Here's a timeline of Obama's campaign: https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/june/obama_candidacy/obama_timeline_04.html 

Note that he started out fundraising Hillary in June of 2007, half a year before the first primary. 

Also, Hillary was doing historically poorly in endorsements in 2007, which was again before Obama started winning: 

 

I'm wary of them doing it, but I'm not claiming the DNC has done it yet. 

 

Note that the article also did not account for the two major factors I previously noted: incumbency and money. Also: 

 

That's a good article showing that the progressives didn't directly win, but the article also points out that the progressive candidates helped with getting turnout up to help the moderates win. 

 

Yeah, it's ridiculous to be cautious of something that happened in the previous primary. I mean, why were there process changes if there was nothing to worry about? Now the question is whether those changes will result in a more impartial DNC or not. 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

 

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.

[Danny Bateman]

54 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Your last paragraph makes you sound like a Trump voter complaining about the Russia investigation. “They’re just mad Hilary lost.” 

 

The process should be fair and it wasn’t last time. They have the right to run it how they want but imo it should be more democratic. Don’t fund or back one candidate over the others and make another stupid choice, and don’t have super delegates.  

 

It's funny you should say that, because it seems to me most hardcore Sanders supporters seem a lot like Trump supporters to me: They similarly look for conspiratorial, fact-free junk to explain why Bernie isn't running away with the nomination already.

 

I don't have any problem with anything you wrote. 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?

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Occam's Razor