The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Ratt Mhule]

These Bernie Bros are so toxic and divisive! Oh wait...

 

Wonder if reporters will mention the Bloom Bros booing this old lady. 

[JJ Husker]

57 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Yeah I do. He's always put money into politics to support candidates who he agrees with on both sides of the aisle.  In this case that means despising Trump. Taking the gavel away from McConnell and having a Democratic Senate would make an excellent Trump foil.

 

 

All politics are local. The person at the top of the ticket has a lot of potential to influence downballot candidates. Bernie is a bit of a regionally appealing candidate that has an extremely narrow path to victory through the Rust Belt. He's not winning Arizona. He's not winning North Carolina. He's not winning Georgia. He's not winning Alabama or Kentucky or South Carolina or Texas or any of the other states where Senate races are even more of a stretch. He's not winning NE-02's one EV. Heck, @JJ Husker is a fairly moderate guy in CO who dislikes both parties for the most part and even he doesn't want to vote for him.

 

It's not likely any Dem is super competitive in any of those places. I think a savvy moderate could be a stronger play in the Sun Belt in some of those places. Running a perceived socialist is not going to be helping in any of those races nor in any purple district House races. Candidates in those areas will have to run on a promise of "Bernie is a great guy, but I'm going to D.C. to rein him in."

 

Obviously just my take but I think it's fairly reasonable. Could be wrong though.

I think this is reasonable and fairly accurate. I just really wish there was a candidate, anybody, that did not come with a bunch of undesirable baggage. I like Bernie and would want to vote for him but man, a few of his things are just a bit much for me. Biden is probably the most mainstream and moderate choice but he just really strikes me as too old and out of touch. Buttegeig is a young energetic guy that says a lot of the right things but if you wait a couple days he’ll contradict himself. He doesn’t strike me as genuine. Never have liked Warren. No offense ladies but she just seems b!^@hy. Yang (out of it now) was a nice guy but too laid back for a serious run at the Oval Office. And then there’s Trump, probably the worst human being to ever hold the office but it’s hard to deny that the economy hasn’t been strong and, in the long run, I like some of what he’s doing to help equalize trade (short term there have been problems) and unemployment has been outstanding. The most important issue in general elections has always been and probably always will be the economy. I can’t vote for the slime bag but I just might be convinced to not vote at all.

 

My top issue is healthcare. Trump sucks on that issue. I could probably be talked into M4A (or whatever the acronym is) but I sure want to see more detail on the how what who when and how much. I could also be talked into fixing Obamacare by tweaking it and making it stronger.

 

I guess it will just depend on how the Dem nominee transitions into the general election. There’s a few I could vote for if I hear the right things. I just wish, oh how I wish, it was a problem of having 2 or 3 strong candidates rather than once again trying to pick the lesser of multiple evils.

[RedDenver]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I’m concerned Bloomberg will run even if he doesn’t win the nomination.

 

9 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

That's worse case scenario for dems. It'll pull enough votes away from the democratic nominee that no matter who would possibly run as the independent Trump wins. 

I think Bloomberg running third-party will actually hurt Trump more than Bernie. People seem to forget Bloomberg was a Republican mayor of NYC who supported W.

[RedDenver]

HAHAHA!!!

 

[RedDenver]

For anybody that thinks Carville has any political sense:

 

[Moiraine]

15 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

and BTW,

 

Bernie Sanders got more young voters in New Hampshire than everyone else combined

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134454/new-hampshire-primary-results-sanders-young-voters

 

As I stated months ago, I think this alone is something that will push him over the edge.  I think it's something no one is expecting and MSM is not anticipating.

 

 

 

I've always had the impression  young voters really like Sanders.

 

 

Edit: decided to look it up and the following supports my hunch although it's several months before the 2016 primaries. Clinton did get more support from 18-29 year olds, but the margin is far smaller than the margin with any other age group.

 

 

 

 

Then here is from 3 months ago - are you sure the media/people in general are surprised by this? The data was there:

 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

I think this is reasonable and fairly accurate. I just really wish there was a candidate, anybody, that did not come with a bunch of undesirable baggage. I like Bernie and would want to vote for him but man, a few of his things are just a bit much for me. Biden is probably the most mainstream and moderate choice but he just really strikes me as too old and out of touch. Buttegeig is a young energetic guy that says a lot of the right things but if you wait a couple days he’ll contradict himself. He doesn’t strike me as genuine. Never have liked Warren. No offense ladies but she just seems b!^@hy. Yang (out of it now) was a nice guy but too laid back for a serious run at the Oval Office. And then there’s Trump, probably the worst human being to ever hold the office but it’s hard to deny that the economy hasn’t been strong and, in the long run, I like some of what he’s doing to help equalize trade (short term there have been problems) and unemployment has been outstanding. The most important issue in general elections has always been and probably always will be the economy. I can’t vote for the slime bag but I just might be convinced to not vote at all.

 

My top issue is healthcare. Trump sucks on that issue. I could probably be talked into M4A (or whatever the acronym is) but I sure want to see more detail on the how what who when and how much. I could also be talked into fixing Obamacare by tweaking it and making it stronger.

 

I guess it will just depend on how the Dem nominee transitions into the general election. There’s a few I could vote for if I hear the right things. I just wish, oh how I wish, it was a problem of having 2 or 3 strong candidates rather than once again trying to pick the lesser of multiple evils.

 

I don't think you're alone in your thinking. I think there's a fairly large group of people that want to rid the country of Trump but aren't in love with the alternatives and could sit out out of apathy or even reluctantly vote Trump if things get goofy enough.

 

I recently heard some analysis that pointed out that because of geographical distribution of voters, the GOP is much more likely to win elections by appealing strictly to their base and trying to turn them out than Dems are. Which means Dems, fortunately or unfortunately, are forced to appeal to a broader slice of the country. Their base voters are too concentrated in CA, NY, etc. So they've got to be able to win over voters like you whereas the GOP can probably get by if they tell you to pound sand and the Dems are stupid.

[Danny Bateman]

I thought this was an interesting graph. Take it FWIW because these are estimates from a model, but nonetheless...

 

Pete infringing a bit on the Sanders argument that he is the best candidate to turn out new voters. If you believe the way to win is not by winning back Obama-Trump voters or juicing turnout among the base but getting non-voters to the polls, it's worth watching to see if this trend continues.

 

In fact this model estimates that almost all non-voters, without exception, pulled the lever for moderates in NH. Odd.

 

 

[Moiraine]

13 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I recently heard some analysis that pointed out that because of geographical distribution of voters, the GOP is much more likely to win elections by appealing strictly to their base and trying to turn them out than Dems are. Which means Dems, fortunately or unfortunately, are forced to appeal to a broader slice of the country. Their base voters are too concentrated in CA, NY, etc. So they've got to be able to win over voters like you whereas the GOP can probably get by if they tell you to pound sand and the Dems are stupid.

 

 

It's just simple math. If you want to win a lot of elections, you need to start reaching rural voters as populations get more concentrated. Rural votes/voters in states with lower populations are weighted more heavily as long as we use the electoral college; due to the senate and due to the # of members of the House not increasing. That's for the presidency. The senate is gonna get even harder to take if the Democrats can't find a way to reach voters in less populated areas, but the GOP has an iron grip, and a lot of it is purely perception and not really reality. It's hard to fight that especially with Fox News.

[FrantzHardySwag]

3 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

perceived socialist

I know you understand this, I've read your posts, so I'm not speaking to you directly - but I just hate this as an insult/negative. Bernie is a socialist in the sense he wants to expand to socialized medicine and socialized education. If you like your socialized roads, and socialized police force and socialized firefighters - you're a bit of a socialist as well. Are people not seeing the cost of education, prescription drugs, healthcare? Would we not better off allowing the govt negotiate a fair price for these services and passing on the savings to the American people, as opposed to stuffing the pockets of greedy corporations? I'd rather the couple hundred I drop for insurance/month go to medicare for all, and I never have to worry about spending dime on healthcare needs for my family. 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

It's just simple math. If you want to win a lot of elections, you need to start reaching rural voters as populations get more concentrated. Rural votes/voters in states with lower populations are weighted more heavily as long as we use the electoral college; due to the senate and due to the # of members of the House not increasing. That's for the presidency. The senate is gonna get even harder to take if the Democrats can't find a way to reach voters in less populated areas, but the GOP has an iron grip, and a lot of it is purely perception and not really reality. It's hard to fight that especially with Fox News.

 

I was speaking specifically about the ability to win the Presidency, but I agree with all of this too. Well said.

 

22 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I know you understand this, I've read your posts, so I'm not speaking to you directly - but I just hate this as an insult/negative. Bernie is a socialist in the sense he wants to expand to socialized medicine and socialized education. If you like your socialized roads, and socialized police force and socialized firefighters - you're a bit of a socialist as well. Are people not seeing the cost of education, prescription drugs, healthcare? Would we not better off allowing the govt negotiate a fair price for these services and passing on the savings to the American people, as opposed to stuffing the pockets of greedy corporations? I'd rather the couple hundred I drop for insurance/month go to medicare for all, and I never have to worry about spending dime on healthcare needs for my family. 

 

If we're going to run the guy we might as well prepare ourselves with open eyes about the attacks that are awaiting us. I'm a bit cynical in this regard so I take the glass-half-empty outlook. You're clearly taking a more positive approach and emulating how one might try to talk skeptics through this. Kudos. I wish I shared your optimism. I've made it in the past myself; I'm just increasingly pessimistic it will work in these purple areas.

 

Even if you and I believe this, it won't matter if people in those areas don't.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

I thought this was an interesting graph. Take it FWIW because these are estimates from a model, but nonetheless...

 

Pete infringing a bit on the Sanders argument that he is the best candidate to turn out new voters. If you believe the way to win is not by winning back Obama-Trump voters or juicing turnout among the base but getting non-voters to the polls, it's worth watching to see if this trend continues.

 

In fact this model estimates that almost all non-voters, without exception, pulled the lever for moderates in NH. Odd.

 

 

Be careful drawing any real conclusions from this - it isn't actually data or results, just a possible solution to a mathematical model. Without any corroborating evidence, it's just as likely that the oddness is an error in the model as anything real.

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

12 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Maybe there is some good old common sense wt those guys - since they can see through trump's nonsense.

 

Romney should have won in 2012 esp after that first debate. If he had, I think he would have been a very good president and we wouldn't have the great divide we have now in this country. 

 

I barely remember his platform other than that he was stand offish and boring.  Certainly he wouldn't have tried to reform the system with a battle axe like Trump.

 

12 hours ago, teachercd said:

Do you seem Blooimie helping out or giving major cash if he is not the nominee?  I guess I have a hard time seeing that.

 

IMO his real goal is to become a king maker in the DNC, not the king himself.  To do that he'll have to cooperate with whoever emerges from the circular firing squad. 

[Notre Dame Joe]

FWIW the first thing out of my mouth when the UKR 'scandal' broke was this is a typical Trump affair because it will force the media to say "Biden" and 'corruption' in the same sentence.   Months later the constant drum beat of stories seems to have bruised Biden and may have wrecked his campaign.  Even his supporters don't say much more beyond "best chance to win the general."

[teachercd]

I am not sure I have ever seen a fall like Bidens...he was so clearly in the lead and now he might as well move to another country.