2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[A_B]

Again, not saying to ignore one over the other.

The 2018 statewide wins in places like VA... That was mostly suburban backlash to Trump.

Edit. First response was unnecessarily bitchy.

The bottom line for me on this, Bernie and Biden both have a TON of work to do. They have major weaknesses in a general. Debating that particular point is bizarre to me.

This could be the Swamp's motto at least until November.

[BSF21]

Because the right has it figured out. Why work to hurt the other side of the aisle when they're doing it to themselves. Fascism is going to have a nice lark in this country because too many people have been convinced to destroy 95% of what they agree on because they can't get over the 5% they don't. And they all watch the same media that feeds the fire and laughs it all the way to the bank. This isn't 4-d Chess, it's Occam's Razor.

[mister d]

It has nothing to do with whether we like Schumer. The quote would have no less significance if Obama said it. My point was that the Democratic Party already failed once against Trump, in what should’ve been a much easier election cycle, because of a blinkered focus on suburban voters while offering scraps to the working class.

And this narrative has already been put in play again. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" even rhymes with "Have Our Cake and Eat It Too". If those who have rallied around Bernie don't allow the party to have final say, prioritizing centrist tax concerns over their own well-being, then its their fault the party doesn't win. The reverse does not apply.

[Nonlinear FC]

Again, not saying to ignore one over the other.

The 2018 statewide wins in places like VA... That was mostly suburban backlash to Trump.

But, you know, keep pulling quotes from people we don't like to win whatever debate you think we're having.

It has nothing to do with whether we like Schumer. The quote would have no less significance if Obama said it. My point was that the Democratic Party already failed once against Trump, in what should’ve been a much easier election cycle, because of a blinkered focus on suburban voters while offering scraps to the working class.

Well, you should've seen I edited that comment. You seem really intent on having a debate on a topic where I'm agreeing with you.

But you also need to be REALLY careful if you are conflating moderate, Fox news watching suburban voters and the people I'm talking about. Dyed in the wool Democrats that are scared to death of Bernie.

Again, I'm not saying we should "ignore the working class." But you can't win in certain parts of the country by pissing off/ignoring suburban voters.

[mister d]

Dyed in the wool Democrats that are scared to death of Bernie.

More macro question, maybe. If Democrats, both a segment of the rank-and-file and especially party leadership, are terrified of Bernie, who represents the growing left?

[degenerasian]

I think the Democrats put themselves into a corner with having to cater to this group or another.

A simple question. Regardless of the nominee, does the VP have to be:

a) a women
b) a minority
c) both
d) neither

[Nonlinear FC]

Dyed in the wool Democrats that are scared to death of Bernie.

More macro question, maybe. If Democrats, both a segment of the rank-and-file and especially party leadership, are terrified of Bernie, who represents the growing left?

I don't speak for this cohort, I'm just aware of it.

I think there are people like Stacey Abrams and Elizabeth Warren that carry a progressive mantel and don't freak people out.

There's a pretty fundamental disagreement within the party. I don't agree with BSF... I think the difference on policy is much more significant on key issues. Would most folks live with either alternative, as opposed to Trump, of course.

But turnout is going to be huge in November, and there are troubling signs out there.

[duff]

Are those dyed in the wool Dems not going to vote if Bernie gets the nomination? I highly doubt it. That would be very destructive on their part. Just like the progressives will most likely vote for Biden if he ends up getting the nomination.

I don't understand people deciding to sit out a vote of this nature. What is the point/stance these people are willing to take?

[A_B]

For lomes: Imagine if you will a woman candidate who is clearly sundowning, another woman who recently had a heart attack, both pushing 80, versus a congenial healthy male candidate who has a plan for everything and tell me who the clear frontrunner would be.

[BSF21]

Are those dyed in the wool Dems not going to vote if Bernie gets the nomination? I highly doubt it. That would be very destructive on their part. Just like the progressives will most likely vote for Biden if he ends up getting the nomination.

I don't understand people deciding to sit out a vote of this nature. What is the point/stance these people are willing to take?

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie is going to take every dollar over 29,000 I make and tax it at 52%"

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie working to regulate the banks will tank the stock market and I need my 401k"

"I can't stand Trump and I like to be vocal about how awful I think he is, but in reality what I want is to be better than my neighbor and have convinced myself that I work harder than everyone else and I deserve the success I have and Bernie is going to make it easier on lazy people that just don't put in the work that I do and don't deserve the same iPhone and Lexus I earned."

I can go on.

[mister d]

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie is going to take every dollar over 29,000 I make and tax it at 52%"

So maybe the same party shouldn't (and functionally doesn't) represent that person and the minimum wage worker who knows they need to work 80 hours per week, 50 out of 52 weeks in the year, just to make $29,000.

[Nonlinear FC]

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie is going to take every dollar over 29,000 I make and tax it at 52%"

So maybe the same party shouldn't (and functionally doesn't) represent that person and the minimum wage worker who knows they need to work 80 hours per week, 50 out of 52 weeks in the year, just to make $29,000.

This is absolutely where we are at. I didn't want to tangent the conversation yesterday, but this really is the trajectory we are on.

[duff]

Are those dyed in the wool Dems not going to vote if Bernie gets the nomination? I highly doubt it. That would be very destructive on their part. Just like the progressives will most likely vote for Biden if he ends up getting the nomination.

I don't understand people deciding to sit out a vote of this nature. What is the point/stance these people are willing to take?

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie is going to take every dollar over 29,000 I make and tax it at 52%"

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie working to regulate the banks will tank the stock market and I need my 401k"

"I can't stand Trump and I like to be vocal about how awful I think he is, but in reality what I want is to be better than my neighbor and have convinced myself that I work harder than everyone else and I deserve the success I have and Bernie is going to make it easier on lazy people that just don't put in the work that I do and don't deserve the same iPhone and Lexus I earned."

I can go on.

Those quotes to me are not the dyed in the wool Dems. Those are Republicans that won't everyone to believe they have a heart by donating 100$ to the Humane Society not realizing the money is going to drugs to euthanize the animals in the shelter. But it was a good deed, so it out weighs their desire to accumulate as much wealth as possible just so they can have their Lexus and iPhones.

[Steve of phpBB]

Those are Republicans that won't everyone to believe they have a heart by donating 100$ to the Humane Society not realizing the money is going to drugs to euthanize the animals in the shelter. But it was a good deed, so it out weighs their desire to accumulate as much wealth as possible just so they can have their Lexus and iPhones.

Yes, and sadly, their votes count as much as anyone else's. And there's millions of them, and you need them to win. They're the ones who are turned off by Trump's chaos and who gave the Dems their House majority two years ago.

And they generally vote, too, so they will likely either vote for Trump or the Dem. 2018 and the special elections showed that they can be willing to vote for a moderate Dem. But if you drive them into voting for Trump, now you have to get two other votes to make up for it.

[Steve of phpBB]

"I can't stand Trump but Bernie is going to take every dollar over 29,000 I make and tax it at 52%"

So maybe the same party shouldn't (and functionally doesn't) represent that person and the minimum wage worker who knows they need to work 80 hours per week, 50 out of 52 weeks in the year, just to make $29,000.

There is a political party that passed a bill raising the federal minimum wage. They also managed - at a cost of their own majority - to pass a law that raised taxes on the rich to fund free healthcare for more than ten million working poor. Their budgets always include increased spending for services needed by the working poor.

Is it enough? Of course not. But unfortunately, we live in a democracy, more or less, and the median household income is over $60,000. If you tell that median income maker "I am going to raise your taxes to help people making less than you," then those folks won't like you, and since there's more of those folks than there are working poor, you'll tend to lose.

[mister d]

Sanders increased tax proposals don't start anywhere near $60K.

[Steve of phpBB]

Sanders increased tax proposals don't start anywhere near $60K.

I was referring to something earlier in the thread.

But Sanders' proposals will clearly require tax increases on people other than those making $200K per year. We went through the math a couple of weeks ago.

Forty percent of households make at least $80K. A big chunk (35%?) make at least $100K. So I think the same principle applies unless you limit your increases to the obviously rich, and then see above.

(At any rate, hasn't Sanders proposed an additional tax on all income above $30K or so to pay for M 4 All?)

[duff]

Those are Republicans that won't everyone to believe they have a heart by donating 100$ to the Humane Society not realizing the money is going to drugs to euthanize the animals in the shelter. But it was a good deed, so it out weighs their desire to accumulate as much wealth as possible just so they can have their Lexus and iPhones.

Yes, and sadly, their votes count as much as anyone else's. And there's millions of them, and you need them to win. They're the ones who are turned off by Trump's chaos and who gave the Dems their House majority two years ago.

And they generally vote, too, so they will likely either vote for Trump or the Dem. 2018 and the special elections showed that they can be willing to vote for a moderate Dem. But if you drive them into voting for Trump, now you have to get two other votes to make up for it.

These people are the ones that voted for Trump in 2016. Don't tell me that they voted for Hillary. No way. All they care about is lining their pockets with more money. They have no other issues they care about. Sure there are a handful of Republicans that abhor abortion and that is their only issue. Some are like that on guns, but most Republicans are more worried about the bottom line. They still live in a world where they believe anyone can rise above by working hard. The only problem is that these (predominately white middle to upper class) have never had to worry about it. Maybe it worked for their great-grandpappy, but that dream doesn't work now. They could care less about anyone else but their own interests. Don't tell me that they would vote for Biden just because he is a nice old white moderate. That is complete bullshit. They are voting Trump. They did in 2016 and they will in 2020. Dems need to work on getting the disenfranchised and suppressed to the voting booths. Get those that have not had their voices heard in politics to the pull the lever in their favor.

[Steve of phpBB]

These people are the ones that voted for Trump in 2016. Don't tell me that they voted for Hillary. No way. All they care about is lining their pockets with more money. They have no other issues they care about. Sure there are a handful of Republicans that abhor abortion and that is their only issue. Some are like that on guns, but most Republicans are more worried about the bottom line. They still live in a world where they believe anyone can rise above by working hard. The only problem is that these (predominately white middle to upper class) have never had to worry about it. Maybe it worked for their great-grandpappy, but that dream doesn't work now. They could care less about anyone else but their own interests. Don't tell me that they would vote for Biden just because he is a nice old white moderate. That is complete bullshit. They are voting Trump. They did in 2016 and they will in 2020. Dems need to work on getting the disenfranchised and suppressed to the voting booths. Get those that have not had their voices heard in politics to the pull the lever in their favor.

If you have evidence for that, great.

Because election results from 2017 through 2018 certainly seem to suggest that a significant number of these folks - who, yes, I agree voted for Trump - have been voting for moderate Democrats since Trump's win. The Dems took every congressional district in Orange County, California. They won a Senate seat in Alabama and held on in Montana. They won the House District just to the south of me.

But like I said, if there is evidence that there's a way to get the disenfranchised to the voting booths without also bringing others out to oppose them, I'd love to see it. Because I would certainly prefer that myself.

[Nonlinear FC]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

[mister d]

She was polling neck and neck with Biden as 2nd choice for both Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

[tennbengal]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

Feels like wishful thinking. Avowed Warren supporter but I just don't see the traction. It remains puzzling to me.

[BSF21]

Sanders increased tax proposals don't start anywhere near $60K.

I was referring to something earlier in the thread.

But Sanders' proposals will clearly require tax increases on people other than those making $200K per year. We went through the math a couple of weeks ago.

Forty percent of households make at least $80K. A big chunk (35%?) make at least $100K. So I think the same principle applies unless you limit your increases to the obviously rich, and then see above.

(At any rate, hasn't Sanders proposed an additional tax on all income above $30K or so to pay for M 4 All?)

To be clear, know the 29k figure is false, just like the rest of the "quotes" up there. I'm just indicating the weaponry that has been used against Sanders/Warren as progressive. It's all false. But the media doesn't care because their job is to make sure people stay tuned in and scared about any future that doesn't directly benefit them.

[Joe K]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

Feels like wishful thinking. Avowed Warren supporter but I just don't see the traction. It remains puzzling to me.

Yeah, I’d be surprised if she even finishes top-2 in any state other than Massachusetts.

[govmentchedda]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

Sadly, I don't feel this way, but I'd love it.

[mister d]

I think they timed everything perfectly to not allow anyone who wasn't expecting this to take advantage. If it were Super Friday, I think she might have been able to capitalize.

[degenerasian]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

We are in a bubble on here.

It's been analyzed as, she's won a lot of 'grass-top' support but not really 'grass-roots' support. So people on twitter or facebook or podcasts or on forums like ours who have a voice proclaim our support for her, and it might seem like SO MANY people. But in reality, the masses who don't have a voice, they're not buying it. And she's getting worse and worse.

[Joe K]

Anybody else out there have a weird gut feeling EW might pull some stunners today?

I just find it fucking bizarre that on here, on Facebook, on Pod Save... SO MANY people seem to like her but the polls just don't seem to reflect that anecdotal stuff.

We are in a bubble on here.

It's been analyzed as, she's won a lot of 'grass-top' support but not really 'grass-roots' support. So people on twitter or facebook or podcasts or on forums like ours who have a voice proclaim our support for her, and it might seem like SO MANY people. But in reality, the masses who don't have a voice, they're not buying it. And she's getting worse and worse.

Yup. My Facebook friends who went to fancy colleges and universities absolutely love her. Like I said, based on my own social network, you’d assume Warren and Pete were running away with it. But she’s never gotten traction with minority or working class voters.

[Nonlinear FC]

Good points, all.

Just seems a damn shame.

[Steve of phpBB]

Sanders increased tax proposals don't start anywhere near $60K.

I was referring to something earlier in the thread.

But Sanders' proposals will clearly require tax increases on people other than those making $200K per year. We went through the math a couple of weeks ago.

Forty percent of households make at least $80K. A big chunk (35%?) make at least $100K. So I think the same principle applies unless you limit your increases to the obviously rich, and then see above.

(At any rate, hasn't Sanders proposed an additional tax on all income above $30K or so to pay for M 4 All?)

To be clear, know the 29k figure is false, just like the rest of the "quotes" up there. I'm just indicating the weaponry that has been used against Sanders/Warren as progressive. It's all false. But the media doesn't care because their job is to make sure people stay tuned in and scared about any future that doesn't directly benefit them.

Sanders' own website talks about a 4 percent tax on all income above $29K. Unless they're fake sites.

[mister d]

Steve, does your "everyone over the median of $60K" currently pay for healthcare?

[Rush2112]

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, does your "everyone over the median of $60K" currently pay for healthcare?

Define "pay". Their employers pay. But it doesn't get taken out of their salary.

Someone who is paid "$65,000 per year plus benefits" doesn't really "pay" for health insurance except theoretically.

[mister d]

Are you talking about people whose employers pay 100% of their insurance? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that at all the norm here. "Salary plus benefits" just means they offer health care, not that they fully cover it.

[Steve of phpBB]

Are you talking about people whose employers pay 100% of their insurance? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that at all the norm here. "Salary plus benefits" just means they offer health care, not that they fully cover it.

That's a good point. I keep extrapolating from my firm's practice, where the employees pay a pittance towards their premiums, an amount that hasn't changed in at least 25 years.

I guess the most accurate answer is, "Some do and some don't, and those that do pay different amounts."

[degenerasian]

I also think with less people in the race, the Phoenix debate on March 15 will be very interesting. If Warren is still in it, who does she attack?

I would like that to be a one-on-one Biden vs Bernie debate where both have to defend their positions.

[tennbengal]

Are you talking about people whose employers pay 100% of their insurance? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that at all the norm here. "Salary plus benefits" just means they offer health care, not that they fully cover it.

That's a good point. I keep extrapolating from my firm's practice, where the employees pay a pittance towards their premiums, an amount that hasn't changed in at least 25 years.

I guess the most accurate answer is, "Some do and some don't, and those that do pay different amounts."

I pay $1200 a month as an employee toward health insurance for my family with my employer paying whatever it is they pay. And then co-pays and deductibles on top of that. Most people pay way more than a pittance as it stands even with employer provided health insurance...

[mister d]

So the only way that $60K family is losing here is if they pay less than $200 per month with zero co-pays or out of pocket expenses.

[mister d]

In MA, we actually did have a full coverage plan through my wife and it was amazing. I think I mentioned many pages ago the cost of birth one was $17 there versus the cost of birth two being >$17K here.

[Johnnie]

Wooooow. Texas Pete isn't the best hot sauce, but it's surely spicier than the alternative: