2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[teeteebee]

This was the site I found earlier. More detail - but also it's several months out of date.

https://prospect.org/power/wealthy-whit ... al-donors/

Joe, I didn't say that Sanders only cares about white men. Rather, that most of the folks who support Sanders - especially those who are in so deep that they talk about not voting if he's the nominee - are white men.

The first link you posted, which is less than a week old, shows that Sanders is second to only Yang in highest percentage of donations from racially diverse zip codes. So the “white men” part is still flat out wrong.

Gentrification and hipsters. I hear zero black folks talking up Bernie.

Cue Killer Mike...

[Johnnie]

#BERNTHEJEWELS



Also, while Iowa is very white, looks like a solid footprint of non-white people like him:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... polls.html

Chris Matthews is an unhinged lunatic:



Truth:

[degenerasian]

[Brontoburglar]

DNC collusion 2020 is a really, really, really bad and inconsequential sequel to Russian collusion 2016

[Joe K]

Chris Matthews is an unhinged lunatic:

I still remember Chris Matthews’ incredible 2008 Election insights like “Obama gives me a chill down my leg” and that Giuliani would be a formidable candidate because he’s a real man who makes you feel like “daddy’s home.”

[Steve of phpBB]

I never fully understood that, and maybe its just me, but I wouldn't think straight white males would be the target demographic for american socialism. Just feels like two different angles of attack.

I really don’t white men are the main target of American socialism. Sanders’ economic message is inclusive.

I think it’s that straight white liberal men are the most *receptive* to a message focused on economics right now. And they have the greatest luxury to take greater risks politically, to “shoot for the stars.” They’re generally concerned about deportation, anti-trans and anti-gay laws, vote suppression and police violence, and abortion bans, but those issues aren’t as personal to straight white men in the same way they are to others.

My wife is completely appalled by the thought of more Kavanaughs on the Supreme Court. Which is where we’re headed if Trump wins.

Though I’m pretty sure that if you look at white men as a whole, Trump is a lot more popular than Sanders or Warren.

[mister d]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

[Pruitt]

The whole circus around choosing a nominee which has been going on for a year already merely serves to drag the party down.

Just ridiculously poorly thought out.

[BSF21]

The whole circus around choosing a nominee which has been going on for a year already merely serves to drag the party down.

Just ridiculously poorly thought out.

/thread

That was easy.

[Joe K]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

The entire premise that boring moderates are lower risk just hadn’t been borne out by the last 30 years of presidential elections. Obama’s candidacy was absolutely viewed as “shooting for the stars,” for obvious reasons. A huge part of Hillary’s arguments against him in 2008 were based on electability. And he was probably the best Democrat at running for President since FDR. I also recall Bill Clinton embracing the “liberal” label in 1992. Sometimes I think that Dems who lived through 1972 and 1984 were so traumatized by those elections that they’re the only 2 cycles that inform any part of their strategic calculus.

[Nonlinear FC]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

The entire premise that boring moderates are lower risk just hadn’t been borne out by the last 30 years of presidential elections. Obama’s candidacy was absolutely viewed as “shooting for the stars,” for obvious reasons. A huge part of Hillary’s arguments against him in 2008 were based on electability. And he was probably the best Democrat at running for President since FDR. I also recall Bill Clinton embracing the “liberal” label in 1992. Sometimes I think that Dems who lived through 1972 and 1984 were so traumatized by those elections that they’re the only 2 cycles that inform any part of their strategic calculus.

Bill Clinton ran as a New Democrat centrist in 1992. He used the DLC as a means of creating a national footprint and quasi-campaign outfit before stepping down as chairman in 1991. He went after Sister Soulja and tangled with Jesse Jackson.

Clinton was the head of the moderate/centrist movement and it has taken 15 years to swing back to the left. He hardly embraced liberal policies or even the general notion.

[Steve of phpBB]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

The entire premise that boring moderates are lower risk just hadn’t been borne out by the last 30 years of presidential elections. Obama’s candidacy was absolutely viewed as “shooting for the stars,” for obvious reasons. A huge part of Hillary’s arguments against him in 2008 were based on electability. And he was probably the best Democrat at running for President since FDR. I also recall Bill Clinton embracing the “liberal” label in 1992. Sometimes I think that Dems who lived through 1972 and 1984 were so traumatized by those elections that they’re the only 2 cycles that inform any part of their strategic calculus.

See, I'm pretty sure that's 100% wrong. I'll start recording the links when I come across them, but the political science types I follow on Twitter or blogs report over-and-over that moderates do better than candidates viewed as more extreme on either end. Once again, there are way more moderates and conservatives in this country than there are liberals. Millions or tens of millions more. Anyway, what the last 30 years shows is that boring moderates lose winnable races *when the Left decides they are fine with the Republican*. There's no way to think that anyone more liberal would have done better in either 1988 or 2004. (Kerry did better than whatever the "models" said he should do against a popular incumbent during an economic upswing and while the Iraq War was still widely supported.)

Obama was only shooting for the stars in a racial sense. He didn't promise to raise taxes on the non-wealthy or take away anyone's guns. And he was publicly religious. And Bill Clinton embracing the "liberal" label? Are you sure? I remember his being a big part of the DLC, the Third Way, and even rushing back to Arkansas to preside over an execution.

I don't think Hillary is a great example. The online left considers her a moderate, but she's been tarred as a liberal whackjob from the right for decades, and she ran with the most liberal platform of any major Presidential candidate in history. She embraced Black Lives Matter, DACA, abortion rights, family leave, equal pay, etc. The only more liberal stance I can think of was a candidate in 2000, who was the strongest environmentalist in major-candidate history, was concerned about climate change decades ago, and was torpedoed by the "Green Party," an act which <ushered in liberal and environmentalist utopia> <gave us George Bush, 9-11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and decades of ignoring climate change>.

[Steve of phpBB]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

Greater rish relative to any "socialist" candidate or any candidate who would run on a platform that would require widespread tax increases. The folks who can say "if the candidate is a moderate like Joe Biden, I'd rather see Trump win."

[Joe K]

“Greater risk” relative to Hillary or am I misreading the intent there?

The entire premise that boring moderates are lower risk just hadn’t been borne out by the last 30 years of presidential elections. Obama’s candidacy was absolutely viewed as “shooting for the stars,” for obvious reasons. A huge part of Hillary’s arguments against him in 2008 were based on electability. And he was probably the best Democrat at running for President since FDR. I also recall Bill Clinton embracing the “liberal” label in 1992. Sometimes I think that Dems who lived through 1972 and 1984 were so traumatized by those elections that they’re the only 2 cycles that inform any part of their strategic calculus.

See, I'm pretty sure that's 100% wrong. I'll start recording the links when I come across them, but the political science types I follow on Twitter or blogs report over-and-over that moderates do better than candidates viewed as more extreme on either end. Once again, there are way more moderates and conservatives in this country than there are liberals. Millions or tens of millions more. Anyway, what the last 30 years shows is that boring moderates lose winnable races *when the Left decides they are fine with the Republican*. There's no way to think that anyone more liberal would have done better in either 1988 or 2004. (Kerry did better than whatever the "models" said he should do against a popular incumbent during an economic upswing and while the Iraq War was still widely supported.)

Obama was only shooting for the stars in a racial sense. He didn't promise to raise taxes on the non-wealthy or take away anyone's guns. And he was publicly religious. And Bill Clinton embracing the "liberal" label? Are you sure? I remember his being a big part of the DLC, the Third Way, and even rushing back to Arkansas to preside over an execution.

I don't think Hillary is a great example. The online left considers her a moderate, but she's been tarred as a liberal whackjob from the right for decades, and she ran with the most liberal platform of any major Presidential candidate in history. She embraced Black Lives Matter, DACA, abortion rights, family leave, equal pay, etc. The only more liberal stance I can think of was a candidate in 2000, who was the strongest environmentalist in major-candidate history, was concerned about climate change decades ago, and was torpedoed by the "Green Party," an act which <ushered in liberal and environmentalist utopia> <gave us George Bush, 9-11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and decades of ignoring climate change>.

I certainly agree that Clinton and Obama both largely governed as moderates. But didn’t Clinton respond to Bush deriding him as a “liberal” with something to the effect of “yes, I am a liberal” and then explaining why that label was a good thing? Maybe I’m thinking of a different race but that’s what I’m referring to. And Obama was definitely perceived by voters as quite liberal.

I also fundamentally disagree with attributing the losses of boring moderates to leftist activists of the very small number of Green Party voters. The bigger issue is that there are tens of millions of non-voters in this country who feel completely disengaged from politics. They don’t vote because they don’t think that any candidate will actually improve their lives. And frankly, that’s not a completely unreasonable view.

If Democratic candidates can tap into that massive block of non-voters it would greatly enhance their electoral prospects. I think populist candidates have a better chance of doing that than a Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg type.

[brian]

It's at least a little concerning that turnout was down in Iowa this year despite more choices (in theory) and supposed excitement around Bernie's campaign prospects. I'm not convinced that nominating him is going to somehow drive turnout enough to make up for the inevitable centrists that will cast their lot with Trump or not vote at all (or vote third party, etc.)

[Nonlinear FC]

Do you guys have me on "Ignore" or something?

Seriously, there's absolutely no debate about what I wrote about Clinton in 1992.

Clinton pretty much coined the term Centrism ffs.

[Steve of phpBB]

I certainly agree that Clinton and Obama both largely governed as moderates. But didn’t Clinton respond to Bush deriding him as a “liberal” with something to the effect of “yes, I am a liberal” and then explaining why that label was a good thing? Maybe I’m thinking of a different race but that’s what I’m referring to. And Obama was definitely perceived by voters as quite liberal.

I don't remember that. (I remember that happening in The American President.)

I certainly agree that Clinton and Obama both largely governed as moderates. But didn’t I also fundamentally disagree with attributing the losses of boring moderates to leftist activists of the very small number of Green Party voters. The bigger issue is that there are tens of millions of non-voters in this country who feel completely disengaged from politics.

Sure, you can't pin the outcome of the 2000 and 2016 elections on a single cause. Like pretty much every other event in history, they had multiple causes. But still, at the end of the day, you had (i) a group of people who supposedly cared about certain political issues, (ii) a choice between two candidates, one of whom was massively better on those issues than the other, and (iii) those people using their votes to enable the election of the massively worse candidate, leading to terrible results.

They don’t vote because they don’t think that any candidate will actually improve their lives. And frankly, that’s not a completely unreasonable view.

And yet, every time Democrats are in power, they improve the lives of millions of people, through legislative action, executive action, and appointments to the bench.

EDIT: Regarding how Obama was perceived. Do you think Obama ran a more liberal campaign in 2008 than Hillary did in 2016? If so, how?

[Steve of phpBB]

Do you guys have me on "Ignore" or something?

Seriously, there's absolutely no debate about what I wrote about Clinton in 1992.

Clinton pretty much coined the term Centrism ffs.

That's certainly how I remember it.

[Nonlinear FC]

Do you guys have me on "Ignore" or something?

Seriously, there's absolutely no debate about what I wrote about Clinton in 1992.

Clinton pretty much coined the term Centrism ffs.

That's certainly how I remember it.

I mean, I lived it??

And the thing is we're talking about a party that had cemented its feet in a stodgy and not all that inclusive Liberalism in the 70s and 80s. It's the party that brought you Carter and Mondale. It was a party that was personified by people like Rosa DeLauro and David Bonior.

The party needed to shake out of the doldrums and tack more towards the mainstream (moderate) electorate. That's what Clinton did in 92. Seems cliche to say this, but I'll repeat, they (DLC/Clinton/Brain Trust) didn't think they'd win in 92, and were gearing up for 96 in setting up their national apparatus. Clinton threaded the needle, quite remarkably, and here we are.

[Ryan]

6:45 AM. Voter #108. Parking lot filling up already. Signs/supporters were 50% Pete, 20% Amy, 10 % Warren, 10% Other. Have seen about 3 Biden signs all year.

[Nonlinear FC]

No Bernie? Or did he fall into "other?"

My son wanted to go up there over the weekend but the car he was hoping to get into last minute was full. He's big time backing Bernie. Watched a webinar on how to canvas, centered around talking points. He's canvased before down here in MD, so he was raring to go...

If we can get the college-aged voters out, we'll wax Trump in the fall.

[Ryan]

No Bernie? Or did he fall into "other?"

My son wanted to go up there over the weekend but the car he was hoping to get into last minute was full. He's big time backing Bernie. Watched a webinar on how to canvas, centered around talking points. He's canvased before down here in MD, so he was raring to go...

If we can get the college-aged voters out, we'll wax Trump in the fall.

"Other" for signs, but 15 of our 20 doorbell rings last month were for Bernie. As soon as we told someone we had both decided on Warren, they swarmed. Including a girl with a headlamp at like 8:45 on Saturday night.

[Nonlinear FC]

They're called breasts, Ryan.

Geez.

[brian]

We actually had a Biden door knocker here on Sunday. They seemed legit sad when I said we were caucusing for Warren next week.

[degenerasian]

Predictions again?

1. Bernie
2. Pete
3. Amy
4. Liz
5. Joe

The surprise might be Tulsi. She's invested a ton into NH.

[Johnnie]

What the fuck!!!

'Digital Brown Shirt Brigade'

Fucking Chuck Todd, man.

[Nonlinear FC]

Predictions again?

1. Bernie
2. Pete
3. Amy
4. Liz
5. Joe

The surprise might be Tulsi. She's invested a ton into NH.

The battle for the third place slot is huge.

1. Bernie
2. Pete
3. Warren
4. Joe
5. AK

I think it was a miscalculation for Biden to announce he's not going to stay in NH tonight. Not a huge deal, but you're already looking at unmotivated supporters, now you run the risk of the "after work" crowd just saying fuck it and going home rather than to a polling place. And if there's a line? Fuck it all over again.

[degenerasian]

What the fuck!!!

'Digital Brown Shirt Brigade'

Fucking Chuck Todd, man.

No one listens to old lady Chris Matthews or Chuck Toad.

All the tools that were used to weaponize against Trump are now being used to weaponize against Bernie.

[degenerasian]

Media is nuts. NPR Roundtable this morning was an hour of fellating Bloomberg and bashing Bernie.

[Joe K]

Using the term “brown shirts” to refer to supporters of a first-generation Jewish-American who had many relatives killed in the Holocaust is beyond offensive. As was Matthews’ suggestion that Sanders would cheer public executions. But MSNBC has long been aggressively anti-Sanders so I don’t expect either to face any repercussions.

And as to Degen’s last post, it’s going to be just great when we get to Super Tuesday and the “Bernie’s not a Democrat!” crowd is stumping for Bloomberg. Because being a leftist independent is somehow worse than being a Republican plutocrat.

[degenerasian]

The Democrats would rather run Pete or Bloomberg and lose to Trump and then regroup for 2024 then have Bernie win in 2020.

[Steve of phpBB]

The Democrats would rather run Pete or Bloomberg and lose to Trump and then regroup for 2024 then have Bernie win in 2020.

Yup. By all means, what the Dems really want is a complete lack of power, plus four more years of Republican court appointments so they can lack power in the future, too.

[Johnnie]

The liberal media does, for sure. But liberal people in general do not.

MSNBC is fucking gross and pathetic. The levels of depravity to which establishment Democrats will go is sickening. And why? Because Bernie upends the status quo and threatens the ecosystem.

The rich liberal elites love acting high and mighty, but when push comes to shove they care about the general population as much as Republicans. They fucking suck.

[Rush2112]

[mister d]

The PEOPLE WHO FUND THE ESTABLISHMENT Democrats would rather run Pete or Bloomberg and lose to Trump and then regroup for 2024 thAn have Bernie win in 2020.

[degenerasian]

Amy is up on Pete early. Shes got 26%

[Ryan]

Currently regretting not grabbing a few friends and pushing Tom Damn Steyer ahead of the guy that was Vice President

[Joe K]

Results so far are really not good for Warren. Getting almost doubled up by Klobuchar in a New England state is a bad sign. Also, Yang is dropping out. If he endorses, I suspect it’ll be Sanders.

[mister d]

The Warren result seems rough for Sanders from a consolidation standpoint. You'd think he'd want her as the clear 2nd or 3rd then out and on his side rather than fading this early on.

[Joe K]

The Warren result seems rough for Sanders from a consolidation standpoint. You'd think he'd want her as the clear 2nd or 3rd then out and on his side rather than fading this early on.

Agreed. Also, if she’s been bleeding voters to Klobuchar and Buttigieg it suggests that Warren and Sanders backers were much more different than everyone assumed. I have my theories on why that might be but it’s a surprising wrinkle.