Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[RaikouLover]

Not only was Bloomberg a republican, but he donated to republican candidates in 2016 and 2018. He donated a large amount to Toomey’s senate campaign in 2016 and probably cost the democrats a seat in the senate that would have made Kavanaugh a lot harder to get through. RaikouLover i actually kind of agree there is exaggeration about how not liberal Pete/Joe/Amy (and even Warren) from the Bernie crowd (and Pete / Joe / Amy are my 6th 5th and 3rd choices after Warren/Bernie), but Bloomberg is a pro stop and frisk conservative. I honestly don’t know if I could vote for Bloomberg in the general and I’m definitely a vote for the dem candidate no matter what cause I’m pragmatic. But fuck Bloomberg, that just needs to be said more often.

Clearly you don’t live in the NYC area like I do. Bloomberg is a really bad Republican. He ran as one because it was the expeditious path in NYC (Republicans get decimated in NYC)

But don’t take my word for it- read his positions for yourself (these were complied before his presidential run)

https://www.ontheissues.org/mike_bloomberg.htm

 

[atomicllamas]

Clearly you don’t live in the NYC area like I do. Bloomberg is a really bad Republican. He ran as one because it was the expeditious path in NYC (Republicans get decimated in NYC)

But don’t take my word for it- read his positions for yourself (these were complied before his presidential run)

https://www.ontheissues.org/mike_bloomberg.htm

And this excuses his donations to republican senate campaigns in swing states like Pennsylvania how?

 

[RaikouLover]

And this excuses his donations to republican senate campaigns in swing states like Pennsylvania how?

Purity tests are for losers. Bloomberg pledged $1 billion towards beating Trump in 2020, even if the nominee is Sanders. Gonna turn that money down?

 

[atomicllamas]

Purity tests are for losers. Bloomberg pledged $1 billion towards beating Trump in 2020, even if the nominee is Sanders. Gonna turn that money down?

It’s not a purity test, it’s don’t run millions of dollars in ads to help Republicans maintain a seat in Pennsylvania. He also literally ran millions of dollars in ads against democratic senators from North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana for not voting on the gun control law he wanted, as if their republican opponents from those red states would be more open to gun laws. Democrats have 0 of those seats now. “Purity tests are for losers” tell that to Bloomberg.

 

[RaikouLover]

It’s not a purity test, it’s don’t run millions of dollars in ads to help Republicans maintain a seat in Pennsylvania. He also literally ran millions of dollars in ads against democratic senators from North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana for not voting on the gun control law he wanted, as if their republican opponents from those red states would be more open to gun laws. Democrats have 0 of those seats now. “Purity tests are for losers” tell that to Bloomberg.

Purity test are for losers. Are we too pure to take Bloomberg’s money? If it’s Bloomberg vs. Trump, who you gonna vote for?

 

[billymills]

I'll be interested to see who drops out after NH.

The way the calendar is set up this year looks very good for Bernie.

Biden will be keen to stay in until South Carolina.
Klobuchar and Warren will want to stay in until their home states vote on Super Tuesday.
Buttigieg will try to carry his early momentum that long.
Bloomberg really enters the race on Super Tuesday.

With South Carolina voting only 2 days before super tuesday, that means 5 candidates are likely to be vying for the moderate vote on Super Tuesday (1344 delegates), and with 15% thresholds in every state, Bernie could pick up a massive lead. (Think ~800 delegate lead)

At this point, I think it's best for Bernie for as many candidates to stay in as long as possible (even minor candidates, like Gabbard and Yang), to dilute the vote pool and keep as many people as possible below 15%. It'll be interesting to see how the party tries to avoid this outcome.

 

[atomicllamas]

Purity test are for losers. Are we too pure to take Bloomberg’s money? If it’s Bloomberg vs. Trump, who you gonna vote for?

I liked how you managed to ignore everything I posted in order to post the same vapid response, being dense isn’t a virtue. I’ll gladly take his money, I would probably hold my nose and vote Bloomberg, but he’s the smelliest candidate and a lot of people aren’t going to vote in an election between two billionaires (well one billionaire and one “billionaire”). If Bloomberg can straight up buy the nomination then it really says a lot about the system and none of the things it says are good.

This is the primary thread, where we discuss the pros and cons of the candidates in the primary. Criticizing a third tier candidate for his historically inept donations to Republicans which have historically undermined his long term goals is not too radical for this thread.

 

[RaikouLover]

I liked how you managed to ignore everything I posted in order to post the same vapid response, being dense isn’t a virtue. I’ll gladly take his money, I would probably hold my nose and vote Bloomberg, but he’s the smelliest candidate and a lot of people aren’t going to vote in an election between two billionaires (well one billionaire and one “billionaire”). If Bloomberg can straight up buy the nomination then it really says a lot about the system and none of the things it says are good.

This is the primary thread, where we discuss the pros and cons of the candidates in the primary. Criticizing a third tier candidate for his historically inept donations to Republicans which have historically undermined his long term goals is not to radical for this thread.

Bloomberg is a 2020 Presidential Candidate. This conversation is relevant. No democrat or progressive can credibly argue that Bloomberg and Trump are (im)morally equal enough to sit out.

You want to tackle climate change? Health care? Gun safety? Infrastructure? Kiss all that goodbye if Trump wins. Zilch. Nada.

But if you want to stay pure, at least you can be right about some candidates not being woke enough in their past political life.

 

[atomicllamas]

Bloomberg is a 2020 Presidential Candidate. This conversation is relevant. No democrat or progressive can credibly argue that Bloomberg and Trump are (im)morally equal enough to sit out.

You want to tackle climate change? Health care? Gun safety? Infrastructure? Kiss all that goodbye if Trump wins. Zilch. Nada.

But if you want to stay pure, at least you can be right about some candidates not being woke enough in their past political life.

You reading my posts or nah?

 

[RaikouLover]

You reading my posts or nah?

We went through the exact same circular conversations in 2016.

There will be few if any tangible differences between President Biden / Bloomberg / Klobuchar and President Sanders.

 

[Machoke]

Emotion doesn’t foster healthy debate. Calling Sanders a 78 year old Jewish socialist that just had a heart attack is truth; not a personal jab. We both know all of those points will be viciously used against Sanders in a general election. Politics is neither fair nor courteous. Don’t take criticisms of Sanders so personally. It’s clear that mentioning things Republicans will attack bothers you.

Like I said, they have mud to sling on literally everyone. Warren as "Pocahontas", Amy as a "Comb throwing abusive boss", Biden as "sleepy" and "corrupt", Pete as "corrupt" "inauthentic" and they could even use him being gay against him. I don't really care what Trump stans think, I'm talking about the democratic primary and the best candidate in it.
What is "bothering me" is the fact you've learned literally nothing from Hillary's loss in '16 apparently and are pulling random right wing talking points out of nowhere and want candidates that will lose to Trump to win the primary based on ur bad opinions lul
Also, you never gave me any evidence when I requested it on your claim that "most of the democrats" agree with you about Sanders. So uh... I'm waiting :^)

 

[RaikouLover]

Like I said, they have mud to sling on literally everyone. Warren as "Pocahontas", Amy as a "Comb throwing abusive boss", Biden as "sleepy" and "corrupt", Pete as "corrupt" "inauthentic" and they could even use him being gay against him. I don't really care what Trump stans think, I'm talking about the democratic primary and the best candidate in it.
What is "bothering me" is the fact you've learned literally nothing from Hillary's loss in '16 apparently and are pulling random right wing talking points out of nowhere and want candidates that will lose to Trump to win the primary based on ur bad opinions lul
Also, you never gave me any evidence when I requested it on your claim that "most of the democrats" agree with you about Sanders. So uh... I'm waiting :^)

Candidates perceived by voters as moderate do better in general elections. Apparently you haven’t learned anything from 2016 where the electorate thought Trump was closer to the center than Clinton.

That doesn’t mean a base candidate such as Sanders can’t win, it just means assumptions of his progressive bona fides carrying midwestern voters are misunderstood. The tipping point voter for 2020 is a working class Wisconsinite. Do you think socialism appeals to them?

 

[Machoke]

Candidates perceived by voters as moderate do better in general elections. Apparently you haven’t learned anything from 2016 where the electorate thought Trump was closer to the center than Clinton.

That doesn’t mean a base candidate such as Sanders can’t win, it just means assumptions of his progressive bona fides carrying midwestern voters are misunderstood. The tipping point voter for 2020 is a working class Wisconsinite. Do you think socialism appeals to them?

Still waiting on your proof!
Cuz this opinion literally doesn't support what the polls show and Sander's success and his head to head matchups vs Trump lmao

 

[RaikouLover]

Still waiting on your proof!
Cuz this opinion literally doesn't support what the polls show and Sander's success and his head to head matchups vs Trump lmao

Sanders hasn’t faced negative ads yet. This is the Republican argument towards Sanders:

“Lower taxes and good economy. Are you willing to give that up for socialism?”

Against other candidates that is nonsensical. However, we have Bernie on tape saying “I am a socialist.” That will be in every Republican attack ad for months.

 

[atomicllamas]

We went through the exact same circular conversations in 2016.

There will be few if any tangible differences between President Biden / Bloomberg / Klobuchar and President Sanders.

The conversation is circular because you ignore what people are saying and reply with the same stupid post in spite of the person literally not saying what your response implies.

If you believe it truly does not matter, then why contribute to the conversation. If you’re saying we should focus on electability then all of my critiques of Bloomberg have been relevant. The democrat will still need to win people on the left who won’t want to vote for a billionaire they perceived to have bought the election, and if those people in Madison or Milwaukee don’t show up, it doesn’t matter if a couple 60 year old white dudes in La Crosse Wisconsin vote for Bloomberg instead of Trump. As someone from Minnesota, Democrats win here because the Twin Cities and the surrounding suburbs outvote the rural areas of the state, I don’t know if aiming to turnout Madison and Milwaukee is enough for Wisconsin, but that’s the bear minimum.

Candidates perceived by voters as moderate do better in general elections. Apparently you haven’t learned anything from 2016 where the electorate thought Trump was closer to the center than Clinton.

That doesn’t mean a base candidate such as Sanders can’t win, it just means assumptions of his progressive bona fides carrying midwestern voters are misunderstood. The tipping point voter for 2020 is a working class Wisconsinite. Do you think socialism appeals to them?

Is the working class Wisconsinite going to vote for a New York City Billionaire who’s pet issue is gun control? Or a gay mayor who hasn’t proven himself on the national stage? Or a woman? The swing voter, if they even exist is probably looking to be more like a disaffected young white man than some 50 year old. Young white men like Bernie more than the moderates.

 

[Bughouse]

Llamas you’re usually decently on point but supposing that the typical swing voter is a young white male is just painfully false.

there’s definitely a turnout argument to be made with Sanders but there just isn’t in terms of swing voters.

if you want a swing vote argument then you support Klobuchar. When she runs 10-20 points ahead of other Democrats in the state that inherently means 1) that swing voters exist, and 2) that she wins them over.

 

[Bughouse]

I'll be interested to see who drops out after NH.

The way the calendar is set up this year looks very good for Bernie.

Biden will be keen to stay in until South Carolina.
Klobuchar and Warren will want to stay in until their home states vote on Super Tuesday.
Buttigieg will try to carry his early momentum that long.
Bloomberg really enters the race on Super Tuesday.

With South Carolina voting only 2 days before super tuesday, that means 5 candidates are likely to be vying for the moderate vote on Super Tuesday (1344 delegates), and with 15% thresholds in every state, Bernie could pick up a massive lead. (Think ~800 delegate lead)

At this point, I think it's best for Bernie for as many candidates to stay in as long as possible (even minor candidates, like Gabbard and Yang), to dilute the vote pool and keep as many people as possible below 15%. It'll be interesting to see how the party tries to avoid this outcome.

This is not overly beneficial for Sanders per se. while the viability thresholds of 15% does mean that division among moderates could lock multiple moderate candidates out, i don’t think it will last too long. After a few states of being locked out a moderate will drop and then the problem is reduced. And in any event since the states don’t award delegates winner take all, a field with many candidates means Bernie, or anyone else, is that much less likely to get to 50% of the delegates, increasing the likelihood of a brokered convention.

And if I’m reading the conspiracies right, there’s no way the dnc would ever nominate Sanders in such a scenario ;)
(I actually agree with that for the record but not because it’s a conspiracy so much as the reality that brokered conventions are meant to pick compromise candidates and he is anything but one.)

 

[atomicllamas]

Llamas you’re usually decently on point but supposing that the typical swing voter is a young white male is just painfully false.

there’s definitely a turnout argument to be made with Sanders but there just isn’t in terms of swing voters.

if you want a swing vote argument then you support Klobuchar. When she runs 10-20 points ahead of other Democrats in the state that inherently means 1) that swing voters exist, and 2) that she wins them over.

I’ve seen some articles listing the undecided in 2020’s demographics.

https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/data-note-swing-voters/

That’s not the one I originally saw but, 18-29 years old has the highest percent of undecideds and it’s slightly more male.

 

[Bughouse]

I’ve seen some articles listing the undecided in 2020’s demographics.

https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/data-note-swing-voters/

That’s not the one I originally saw but, 18-29 years old has the highest percent of undecideds and it’s slightly more male.

I’ll bite on this. There’s been a lot of study of swing voters in the past and the group that pretty consistently comes out on top is the “soccer moms” if you will. Middle aged white suburban women aged like 40-65, especially those without a college degree.

There’s actual data to back why that soccer mom thing being a stereotype

Here’s an example of one model
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/03/how-to-forecast-an-americans-vote

it’s also notable that Clinton only won white women WITH a college degree 51-49. In the 2018 midterms that went up to like 59-41, which I believe was the largest jump in any category among white voters (who are the most likely to swing in the first place).

to be clear a lot of this depends on how you identify who’s a SWING voter to begin with. I agree a model that says someone who didn’t vote one election and then turns up another is more likely to identify young voters as the leading swing voters since there’s a lower turnout rate generally. This is however what I was referring to as a turnout argument. True SWING voters who vote twice and change parties or ticket split etc are most likely to be middle aged white women.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

A brokered convention is probably the worst possible outcome for the DNC, depending on who's in the lead come June 6. If Sanders leads in pledged delegates and superdelegates choose someone like Bloomberg on the second ballot, that would likely alienate Sanders voters enough to prompt them to stay home in November - which is not conducive to defeating Trump on election day. In the event of a brokered convention with Sanders leading among pledged delegates, I can't see anyone but Warren qualifying as a compromise candidate without excessively alienating Sanders voters.

I think everyone running knows this, though, and I don't think anyone (except Bloomberg, who probably sees a brokered convention as one of his winning scenarios) wants anything that could cause anything like what happened at the 1968 convention, so we'll probably be seeing candidates drop out between now and Super Tuesday depending on how they do in the primaries and caucuses between then. In particular, Buttigieg's results will probably tank after New Hampshire, and if Biden doesn't win South Carolina, I don't see how he stays in the race.

 

[TheValkyries]

Swing Voters don’t exist anymore and the “Centrist candidates do better” thing is an obvious myth disproved by the literal sitting president.

The voting blocs being mobilized by a more leftist approach to politics outweigh the moderate swing voter, and aren’t going to be contested by Trump (whereas the swing voters will be).

if y’all want to keep voting for moderates who have a common ground while the right slips closer and closer to a eugenicist ethnostate then... spoilers: the “Democratic” party will slip further and further right along with them, ultimately not doing enough to reverse the harms done.

Ask me what I think of the Democratic Establishment in the face of the future of the Republican Party.

 

[Celticpride]

I’m honestly getting to the point where I don’t want to vote for anyone this primary season is too damn long

 

[Machoke]

Sanders hasn’t faced negative ads yet. This is the Republican argument towards Sanders:

“Lower taxes and good economy. Are you willing to give that up for socialism?”

Against other candidates that is nonsensical. However, we have Bernie on tape saying “I am a socialist.” That will be in every Republican attack ad for months.

ok bro I'm just gonna keep waiting on this evidence you don't have for your unsubstantiated opinions

 

[SpaceXQueen]

Let the Republicans say what they will. They are losing anyway.

 

[RaikouLover]

Swing Voters don’t exist anymore and the “Centrist candidates do better” thing is an obvious myth disproved by the literal sitting president.

The voting blocs being mobilized by a more leftist approach to politics outweigh the moderate swing voter, and aren’t going to be contested by Trump (whereas the swing voters will be).

if y’all want to keep voting for moderates who have a common ground while the right slips closer and closer to a eugenicist ethnostate then... spoilers: the “Democratic” party will slip further and further right along with them, ultimately not doing enough to reverse the harms done.

Ask me what I think of the Democratic Establishment in the face of the future of the Republican Party.

Wrong. Voters perceived Trump as closer to the center than Clinton.

“Moderate” candidates win because the electorate is more moderate as a whole, not because there are mythical swing voters that change between elections.