SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-23 10:58pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
2020-02-23 10:34am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-23 01:05am
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS PROJECTED TO WIN THE NEVADA CAUCUSES, CURRENT TALLY 46.6% SANDERS, 19.2% BIDEN, 15.4% BUTTIGIEG, 10.3% WARREN.




Sanders can't win outside heavily white states, you say?

Sanders can't win more than 30% anywhere, you say?

FEEL THE FUCKING BERN, I SAY. :D
Yes, Sanders is likely to get a 20 point margin of victory; which I am a big enough man to admit that it wasn't one I was expecting. Better for him, he maintains that 20 point margin in the popular vote (the tally you're quoting are county delegates ... the caucus system needs to die in a fire. The only thing good about it is the ranked voting.) He dominated the Latinx vote (getting at least 52%, with the next runner up, Biden, only getting 16%) was not an afterthought among African-Americans (banking an impressive 27% of their vote, coming within 10(!) points of Biden,), and only lost the pensioner vote.
Yup. Very solid showing all around.

And I completely agree about the caucus system. Its a multi-layered cluster fuck within a cluster fuck.
Slightly more interesting is the fight to be the Not-Sanders. Biden succeeded in merely being abysmal, rather than outright terrible (mostly on the backs of African-Americans and pensioners.) In county delegates, he has a clear (~4%) lead over Buttigieg; but in the popular vote, they're basically tied. However, time has run out for Buttigieg ... only Joe Biden will win South Carolina.

As for the rest of the rabble:

Elizabeth Warren captured just over 10% of county delegates, and about 12% of the popular vote.
Klobuchar got roughly 5%-something percent of county delegates, and 8% of the popular vote. Bloomberg ought to take notice of Tom Steyer's numbers, since Steyer spent something like $13+ million on advertising in Nevada ... twice the amount of everyone else combined, making his ~4% vote share a pointlessly-expensive exercise in failure. None of these three have credible cases to continue existing as candidates.
Shrug.

It scarcely matters who the second place is, at this point. In any remotely plausible scenario, Sanders will be the nominee.
Now onto South Carolina, where Biden will win and it won't matter (credible polling puts him at 24% to Sanders 20%, with Steyer at roughly 14%. However, Steyer only converted 1/3 to 1/2 of his polling performance into votes in NV; so a naive analysis suggests Biden will win South Carolina, but only by 5-6 points.) The debate won't matter so much (although I think almost everyone who isn't Sanders (and maybe Warren) is going to come with their best McCarthy impression and party like it's 1950; it should, at least, be entertaining to watch.)
Ugg. Every nasty exchange between fellow Democrats is a wound that makes Trump stronger. Part of why I voted for Bernie is because its obvious as day that its him or a contested convention at this point, and I want this wrapped up before it gets nastier than 2016.

Mind you, I actually wouldn't be shocked if Sanders won SC now. The polls were getting close even before Sanders crushed in Nevada, and before Bloomberg imploded on the debate stage. At the very least, its going to be close.

Warren in particular would be well-advised to play nice with Bernie now. Its far too late for her to become the progressive alternative, or the Centrist alternative. She's one of the few other candidates who actually might have a shot at a post and some influence in a Sanders administration- best not to burn those bridges any more than she already has. Steyer too, since billions aside he's one of the more progressive Democratic candidates, and Sanders has spoken well of him in the past.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-23 11:11pm

Latest FiveThirtyEight projections:

Sanders has jumped back in the lead over "No One", with 46% odds (rounded up to 1 in 2, so I retract my previous criticism about FiveThirtyEight's rounding, even if it seems somewhat inconsistent to me). No one at 40. No one else hits double digits (Biden is third, at 9).
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-23 11:55pm

Chris Matthews is finally getting raked over the coals for his anti-Semitic attacks on Bernie Sanders:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/fe ... i-invasion
MSNBC host Chris Matthews compared Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday to the Nazi invasion of France, spurring calls for his firing.

“I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940 and the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over,’” Matthews said on air on Saturday night.

“And Churchill says, ‘How can that be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’”

“So I had that suppressed feeling,” Matthews also said.

Sanders, a senator from Vermont and self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is Jewish.

He won the Nevada caucuses easily, helping solidify his status as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in a primary split between moderates and progressives. Sanders’ win came in the wake of a strong showing in Iowa and victory in New Hampshire.

Tom Elliott
(@tomselliott)
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews likens Sanders victory in Nevada to Nazi Germany overrunning France in 1940: “It’s too late to stop him … it’s over” pic.twitter.com/6GJetLoDkq

February 22, 2020
Matthews’ words prompted widespread anger.

“Bernie is Jewish and his family was killed by the Nazis,” tweeted David Sirota, a Sanders speechwriter and former Guardian contributor. “None of this is OK.”

“This is absolutely disgusting on [Matthews’] part,” tweeted Parker Molloy, editor-at-large at Media Matters for America. “Retire, get fired, whatever. Bottom line is that Matthews needs to be out of a job.”

On air, Matthews said Republicans would disclose opposition research on Sanders that would “kill him” in the general election against Donald Trump.

“It looks like Bernie Sanders is hard to beat,” Matthews said of the primary, adding: “I think it’s a little late to stop him, and I think that’s the problem.”

MSNBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The latent sexism of the "Bernie Bros" attack is also getting called out:

https://gen.medium.com/the-bernie-bro-n ... 2ab7e96b6f
Of all the enduring and bad-faith narratives to spill over from the 2016 presidential election, one stands out in its inability to evolve or die down: the story of the Bernie Bros. For the past five years, the bros have been painted as a mob of young white men, whose toxic online culture embodies the worst of modern political discourse. And as Bernie Sanders emerges as the polling front-runner in the Democratic primary, the Bernie Bro narrative is back with new, breathless urgency.

The topic was front and center on the debate stage on Wednesday night, when Sanders was repeatedly called on to distance himself from his online army. Earlier in the week, Michael Bloomberg tried to turn the energy of Sanders’ base against him, releasing an ad with a reel of vile tweets, messages, and memes circulated by the Vermont senator’s supporters. This follows a reported feud between Sanders and Elizabeth Warren last month, in which unnamed sources claimed Sanders said a woman would never win the White House, deepening a narrative that his campaign is marred by sexism and misogyny.

This mirrors a persistent line of attacks from pundits and political elites in recent years. Last July, MSNBC’s Mimi Rocah said that Sanders makes her skin crawl, for reasons she was unable to identify. In her mind, Sanders is not a very “pro-woman” candidate. Hillary Clinton gave an interview with the Hollywood Reporter last month, accusing Sanders of being complicit in his supporters’ sexist attacks. Meghan McCain responded on The View by saying she could have gone a step further than Clinton in condemning Sanders and the “Bernie Bro sexism that we’ve been talking for days about.”

It’s as if women’s contributions are secondary to the bros — or that we don’t exist at all.

Together, these accusations contribute to the narrative that Sanders’ base is mostly young, white “bros,” and that their sexist online behavior reflects poorly on not just the campaign but also Sanders himself. The added subtext is that women would be wrong to support Sanders; no self-respecting feminist should be associated with a campaign that has such an ingrained and toxic culture.

But as a woman who has supported Sanders’ campaign since the beginning of his candidacy, I find these insinuations to be both insulting and false. The idea that the campaign is all bros undermines the work women have done on it, as if our contributions are secondary to the bros or that we don’t exist at all.

This erasure negates the fact that women have established themselves as the cornerstone of Sanders’ campaign. He has a large number of women in prominent leadership positions. The Economist found that men and women under age 30 support Sanders at roughly the same rate. And according to a January 2019 Morning Consult survey with Politico, Sanders is actually more popular among Latinos than he is among whites. But perhaps the strongest indicator of support would be the amount of money — mainly small donations — Sanders had raised from women. As of last November, he had taken in more money from women than any of his fellow 2020 candidates, though other candidates received a higher fraction of support from women donors

Robinson Meyer first coined the term “Bernie Bro” in a 2015 story for the Atlantic, which created a character profile meant to simultaneously roast and distill this unique brand of Sanders supporter. (“The Berniebro knows a secret: The only reason you, and every other Facebook user, haven’t supported Bernie yet is your own willful ignorance,” Meyer writes.) The Clinton campaign later latched onto the idea and amplified it for the 2016 primary, where it became symbolic of the disconnect between the older, more moderate establishment of the Democratic Party and the younger, leftist base that has emerged in recent years.

The Bernie Bro narrative took hold because it provided a convenient way to explain these dramatic shifts within the Democratic voting bloc. Rank-and-file Democrats and pundits seemed blindsided by the power of Sanders’ candidacy. Many moderates were unsure of how to come to terms with young voters who were holding them accountable, en masse, for their past and present actions. The only way for party elites and commentators to come to terms with this perceived threat to political norms was to single out Sanders’ base, claiming it was divisive, lacked diversity, and did not represent the party as a whole. Doing so was far easier than accepting their policy critiques as possibly legitimate.

The idea that Sanders’ base is composed almost exclusively of misogynistic young white men has unfortunately overshadowed everything the campaign represents. That’s not to say those online segments don’t exist. There is an undeniable frustration coming from the Sanders base that can manifest itself in ugly ways online. Such personal attacks by anyone claiming to be a Sanders supporter are inexcusable. Sanders himself has rightly and repeatedly condemned sexism and vile online behavior. “I don’t tolerate ugly attacks against anybody,” he said at a CNN town hall on Tuesday. And the vast majority of his base agrees.

It is absolutely unfair to paint a picture of Bernie’s support based solely on the actions of a small group of his online supporters. And it often feels as though their anger is misunderstood. The focus on toxicity rarely, if ever, addresses the income inequality, health care injustice, and climate crisis inaction, among other issues, that fuel a lot of the anger online. It also unfairly sweeps up the many supporters, women in particular, who are channeling that frustration into a positive and unprecedented grassroots organization.
To portray Bernie’s supporters as just toxic, misogynistic, angry white men is neither productive nor based on fact.

When I think of the Sanders campaign, I think of his surrogate Nina Turner, who is emerging as a powerful force on the left. Or I think of women like Briahna Joy Gray, René Spellman, Analilia Ford, and Claire Sandberg, among others, who are dedicating their professional lives and talents to a movement they believe in. It’s also encouraging to see that strong women in Congress, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, who took inspiration from Sanders’ first presidential campaign and decided to seek office themselves. Together, these three women have given back by helping revitalize his campaign in a way no one else could have.

For me personally, Sanders’ network of supporters has given me a sense of community, and his movement has finally given a home to my political views. The other Sanders supporters I have encountered both online and in person serve as a constant reminder that this movement was far bigger than any one individual, and his all-star cast of surrogates makes me even more confident in everything he and his base have achieved in such a short amount of time. Whether it’s student debt or health care, Sanders and his base have dramatically reshaped the way we discuss the issues average Americans are facing throughout the country.

To portray Sanders’ supporters as just toxic, misogynistic, angry white men is neither productive nor based on fact and only adds to the sentiment among his base that our voices continue to be unheard. Sanders would not be a front-runner if it weren’t for the women who have been critical to every aspect of his campaign. To dismiss the broad coalition of support that makes up his base as “Bernie Bros” is an outright dismissal of the women on every level who continue to fuel the movement’s success.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-24 01:33am

Buttigieg alleges irregularities in Nevada, hoping to eke out second place:

https://cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/pet ... index.html
Washington (CNN)Pete Buttigieg's campaign sent a letter to the Nevada State Democratic Party on Sunday, alleging that there are "material irregularities pertaining to the process of integrating early votes into the in-person precinct caucus results" and asking the party to take three concrete steps to address the purported issues.

The letter asked the state party to "release early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct​," "correct any outstanding second alignment errors identified by presidential campaigns, including ours" and "explain anomalies in the data."

The allegations make Buttigieg's campaign the first to question the Nevada results, which -- with 50% of precincts reporting -- found Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with a significant lead, former Vice President Joe Biden at 19% and Buttigieg at 15%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren trailed Buttigieg at 10%.

The claims from the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, follow the chaos surrounding the Iowa caucuses weeks earlier. That chaos delayed reporting results from the first-in-the-nation state and undercut the legitimacy of the caucus process. Nevada's process did not experience the same disorder that impacted the Iowa caucuses, but the results have taken hours to report, with thousands still left unreported nearly 24 hours after the caucuses began.

Molly Forgey, communications director for the Nevada State Democratic Party, responded to the letter in a statement to CNN on Sunday.
"We laid out our early vote and Caucus Day processes step by step and we communicated these processes to all campaigns. We are continuing to verify and to report results," Forgey said. "We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now. As laid out in our recount guidance, there is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results."

Hari Sevugan, Buttigieg's deputy campaign manager, said the campaign's data currently shows "that this is a razor thin margin for second place in Nevada" -- a signal that the campaign knows any irregularities would not cause them to catch up to Sanders, who has a seemingly insurmountable lead, but could determine who finishes second.

"And due to irregularities and a number of unresolved questions we have raised with the Nevada Democratic Party, it's unclear what the final results will be," he continued.

CNN has projected Sanders will win the Nevada caucuses. Speaking to supporters on Saturday, Buttigieg congratulated Sanders on the victory but cautioned against nominating Sanders as the Democratic presidential candidate.

"I believe the best way to defeat Donald Trump and deliver for the American people is to broaden and galvanize the majority that supports us on the critical issues," Buttigieg said at his caucus day watch party. "Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans."

Earlier this month, Sanders and Buttigieg requested partial recounts on certain precincts in the Iowa caucuses.

After 100% of precincts were reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, multiple campaigns submitted evidence of what they saw as inconsistencies in counting. The complaints stemmed from 95 precincts -- 5% of the total 1,765 precincts in the state.

On Tuesday, the state party announced that a recanvass of more than 100 Iowa caucus precincts had ended, resulting in Buttigieg's lead over Sanders, tightening to a fraction of a standard delegate equivalent. The state party also said the tightening does not impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates.

This story has been updated with additional comment from the Nevada State Democratic Party and additional background information.
Note that Sanders' win is not in question- this is at most a question of who ekes out a distant second.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2020-02-24 09:31pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-24 01:33am
Buttigieg alleges irregularities in Nevada, hoping to eke out second place:
This is important to Buttigieg. Right now, only Sanders and Biden will walk away from Nevada with any convention delegates. Everyone else gets to pound sand. As it stands, Buttigieg is a mere 0.7% away from viability. Although getting delegates in Nevada won't change the fact that Buttigieg's campaign goes to South Carolina to die this weekend.

As I understand it, the Democratic establishment is in blind panic mode, and, thus, may not have the patience for a bunch of also-rans consuming political oxygen in the Not-Sanders lane while Sanders carries on wrapping his hands firmly around its neck; at which point, there'll be no more oxygen to be had.

That's not to say that the Not-Sanders lane is sitting quietly while Sanders chokes them out. Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have all gone hard-negative on Sanders in South Carolina. On one hand, if Sanders can't weather focused negative attention; it's better that Democratic primary voters find out sooner, rather than later. On the other hand burning them out in the process only benefits Donald Trump.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-24 09:46pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
2020-02-24 09:31pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-24 01:33am
Buttigieg alleges irregularities in Nevada, hoping to eke out second place:
This is important to Buttigieg. Right now, only Sanders and Biden will walk away from Nevada with any convention delegates. Everyone else gets to pound sand. As it stands, Buttigieg is a mere 0.7% away from viability. Although getting delegates in Nevada won't change the fact that Buttigieg's campaign goes to South Carolina to die this weekend.

As I understand it, the Democratic establishment is in blind panic mode, and, thus, may not have the patience for a bunch of also-rans consuming political oxygen in the Not-Sanders lane while Sanders carries on wrapping his hands firmly around its neck; at which point, there'll be no more oxygen to be had.

That's not to say that the Not-Sanders lane is sitting quietly while Sanders chokes them out. Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have all gone hard-negative on Sanders in South Carolina. On one hand, if Sanders can't weather focused negative attention; it's better that Democratic primary voters find out sooner, rather than later. On the other hand burning them out in the process only benefits Donald Trump.
Eh, the way I see it, like it or not (and I'll remind everyone here that my first choice was Elizabeth Warren this time around), Sanders is (barring something very extraordinary/cataclysmic) going to be our nominee, and given that, there's no sense in doing Trump's work for him and tearing him down before we even reach the convention.

Some of those "establishment Democrats" are panicking, yes. And fear makes people do stupid, shitty things. But some seem to be slowly making their peace with the situation. Take Paul Krugman, the legendary free-market economist, who's OP ED for the New York Times following Nevada should be required reading:

https://nytimes.com/2020/02/23/opinion/ ... trump.html
Bernie Sanders Isn’t the Left’s Trump
And this is no time for ego or self-indulgence.

Look, I know the primaries aren’t over, and it’s still possible that Democratic centrists will get their act together. But Bernie Sanders is now the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination. There are many things to say about that, but the most important is that he is NOT a left-leaning version of Trump. Even if you disagree with his ideas, he’s not a wannabe authoritarian ruler.

America under a Sanders presidency would still be America, both because Sanders is an infinitely better human being than Trump and because the Democratic Party wouldn’t enable abuse of power the way Republicans have.

And if you’re worried about his economic agenda, what’s your concern, exactly? That he’ll raise taxes on the rich part way back to what they were under Dwight Eisenhower? That he’ll run budget deficits? Trump is doing that already — and the economic effects have been positive.

I’m more concerned about (a) the electability of someone who says he’s a socialist even though he isn’t and (b) if he does win, whether he’ll squander political capital on unwinnable fights like abolishing private health insurance. But if he’s the nominee, it’s the job of Dems to make him electable if at all possible.

To be honest, a Sanders administration would probably leave center-left policy wonks like me out in the cold, at least initially. And if a President Sanders or his advisers say things I think are foolish, I won’t pretend otherwise in an attempt to ingratiate myself. (Sorry, I’m still not a convert to Modern Monetary Theory.) But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line.
I'd like to see more of that. The twin realizations that even if Sanders isn't their first choice, a) yes he is a better person and a better candidate for PotUS than Donald fucking Trump, and b) given that, Democrats have a duty to support him once he secures the nomination.

I'd also point to Obama as an example of exemplary conduct from an "establishment" Democrat in all this- he has carefully stayed out of any public intervention in the primary, precisely so that he can use his star power to unite the party behind whoever wins the nomination.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-24 10:36pm

Okay, so here's the count from Nevada, and the current total delegate count:

https://270towin.com/news/2020/02/23/up ... s_971.html
Updated Nevada Results and Delegate Counts
February 23, 2020
Bernie Sanders was the clear winner in Saturday's Nevada Democratic caucuses. However, not all the results have been counted, and the Buttigieg campaign is questioning irregularities in the vote.

The estimated delegate allocation for Nevada is below, as well as the total to date. You can also see the results for County Convention Delegates, which is the count that translates into national delegates. As of this writing, a majority of delegates remain to be allocated; the tables below will update as more information becomes available.

For more on the process, see our overview of the Nevada caucuses.
Percentage of County Convention Delegates Vote in Nevada:

Sanders: 46.8%
Biden: 20.2%
Buttigieg: 14.3%
Warren: 9.7%
Steyer: 4.7%
Klobuchar: 4.2%
Other: 0.0% Just a handful of votes here and there.

Nevada Delegates:

Sanders: 24.
Biden: 9.
Buttigieg: 3 (not all delegates are awarded based on state-wide percentage- its complicated).

Total delegates:

Sanders: 45.
Buttigieg: 26.
Biden: 15.
Warren: 8.
Klobuchar: 7.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2020-02-25 08:28pm

So the SC debate has started, and Bernie Sanders is getting the flamethrower out of the gate. The crowd tonight seems to be very friendly to anyone who isn't named Sanders or Warren. Warren took a big swing at Bloomberg and the audience was not pleased. And whenever someone lays a sick burn on Sanders, it's greeted with cheerful applause. So far, Sanders has been sticking to script, but the audience isn't having it.

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2020-02-25 08:40pm

Ongoing commentary ... Sanders' opponents are succeeding in getting under his skin. He's proving to be as prickly and thin-skinned as Bloomberg was last week. Fortunately for Sanders, Bloomberg is on the same stage, and he's just as thin-skinned and prickly as he was last week; since Biden and Warren have landed some solid digs on Bloomberg too.

Bloomberg and Buttigieg are playing the "Bernie Sanders will be the doomsday scenario for the Democrats" scenario pretty hard.

Also, when Sanders brought out "Bloomberg's friends and supporters are billionaires" he got roundly booed by the audience. His only friend in that room tonight is Elizabeth Warren ... but the debate is only 40 minutes in, so I'm sure that won't last.

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2020-02-25 10:16pm

After the break, the moderators just gave Biden a softball about gun control. He touted his own accomplishments, and then took the easy swing at Sanders. Elizabeth Warren talked about ending the filibuster. A bit dry, but okay. Now the moderators just put Sanders in the hot-seat about his gun control record. His first response was to take a dig at Biden's voting record (as a lead-in to his argument that everyone makes bad votes) ... and got booed again.

This is a seriously Not-Sanders friendly crowd tonight. Even Amy "Not Viable" Klobuchar gets applause from them; at least some of the time.

Steyer just raised the concept of term-limits. Anybody who talks about term limits as a way to limit corporate influence in government is non-credible.

Elizabeth Warren just got an education question, which she's very passionate about, and she's finally gotten some decent applause ... And now it's Sanders' turn. He's back to be being on-script. Fortunately for him, his script on education played well with the audience.

Klobuchar got a question on housing. Her response was dry and boring ... when I woke up, Warren got a cheer on "redlining."

Klobuchar is getting a question about rural health coverage. Her response was dry and boring ... when I woke up, Buttigieg was trying to dunk on Sanders for doing a pivot to Medicare-for-All.

Bloomberg got a softball about his predilection for banning things that are bad for people. He got applause at the line that he extended life expectancy by three years.

Klobuchar got a question about marijuana legalization. The audience cheered when the moderator said that Sanders would legalize marijuana on day one. Her answer was long, technical, and boring. Then it went to Bloomberg, whose half-hearted talk of decriminalization landed with a thud. Then, they gave to Sanders, and the audience liked his response. So the audience likes things that are Not-Sander ... and pot.

Now, after the end of the second commercial break; Warren gets a question on how she shifted from bringing "all" troops home to bringing all "combat" troops home from the Middle East. She pivoted to a broader response. Bloomberg is against pulling all troops out of the Middle East.

Wow, the moderators are now ruling the debate with an iron fist now. Lots of chances for Biden to talk about his record to a friendly audience. Warren took a question about allowing the Chinese to build US infrastructure to attack Bloomberg for his tax returns.

Now the moderators are needling Sanders about his previous admiration for authoritarian leaders. His position about acknowledging advances made by them got boos. His response: "Really?" And now it's back to chaos ... Bernie Sanders actually shouted down Pete Buttigieg. The moderators went to Klobuchar for her guaranteed ability to put everyone to sleep; which she used to lob an attack on Sanders. However, Sanders seems to be back on his game, and got applause for batting Klobuchar aside.

Steyer got a big response from the audience about his drive to impeach Trump.

It's foreign policy time!
Sanders did a masterful turn directing a question about his disdain for AIPAC, and whether he'd move the American embassy back to Tel Aviv, into an attack on Netanyahu, and the audience lapped it up.

Amy Klobuchar said something long and boring ... when I woke up, Biden sure gets lots of mileage dissing the debate moderators.

Pete Buttigieg took a question about Syria and turned it into an attack on Sanders about Medicare-for-All. The moderators cut off Sanders before he could reply and put the same Syria question to Warren instead.

And now, it's time for the pointless closing statements. The moderators wanted misconception, and then personal motto.
- Steyer's answer was straight-laced.
- Klobuchar said a common misconception about her is that she's boring. Then she spent the next 100 years of her 45 seconds being boring.
- Biden gave an over-long campaign pitch.
- Bloomberg said ... I forgot. Honestly, I don't care, and I suspect, neither do any of you.
- Sanders gave an answer that should've ended a sentence early. His driving motto ... Nelson Mandela saying that things are impossible until they happen, was the best one. If he'd ended there, would've made a nice mic drop.
- Warren and Buttigieg gave pat answers invoking their Christian faith. Warren's felt genuine, Buttigieg's felt well-rehearsed.

Final thoughts:

- Sanders had a really rough start, but found his groove in the end. The problem for him is, most of the viewers tuned out after the first commercial break.

- Fortunately for Sanders, Bloomberg was also on stage, and managed to be terrible throughout. He needs to go away.

- Unfortunately for Sanders, this debate was fine-tuned to make Joe Biden look good.

- The only distinguishing feature about Pete Buttigieg is he's not Bernie Sanders. He'll make a fine Midwestern governor someday. Today, though, he needs to go away.

- The only distinguishing feature about Amy Klobuchar is ... what was I talking about again? I nodded off. Right, Klobuchar ... she needs to go away.

- Warren made a compelling case to be a fine Secretary of Education, but not a compelling case to stay in this race. She needs to go away.

- Steyer ... I almost let this post go without a final thought about Steyer. Why is he even there? He needs to go away.

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15622
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Knife » 2020-02-26 12:12am

Fair analysis. As a Warren fan, even I'm beginning to worry about her viability. I don't see SC changing that either. She'll stick to it through Super Tuesday, but I'm a little afraid she'll have to drop. That said, so will Klobashar, the billionaires, and Butigieg. Only way that changes is if Biden drops the ball in SC and is crushed then and there.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-26 01:14am

Missed the debate due to work and volunteer commitments, but got the rundown from my mum as soon as I got home. I gather it was basically everyone including the moderators dog-piling Bernie, except Warren, who kept her attacks on Sanders minimal, backed him up a bit on progressive policy, and mostly focussed her attacks on Bloomberg (kudos to Warren). That's probably indicative, I'd guess, of where things are going to go in the event of a contested convention: Warren urging her delegates to go to Bernie, the rest selling their support to the highest Never Bernie bidder.

Fucking assholes. They have to know that in all probability Bernie is going to be the nominee. Maybe some of them honestly believe he's a dangerous tyrant in the making, or that he'd be sure to lose to Trump, and they're just that scared of him winning that they think almost anything is justified to stop it- but it comes off more as pettiness, stubourness, and greed. And given that the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, it comes off as trying to preemptively spike the future nominee and hand the election to Trump. After all these months, years, of saying how dangerous Trump is, how he's a dictator, how he must be removed from office no matter what... they're helping him out to spite Sanders.

Guess a tax hike or a loss of influence is scarier to them than Australia burning or dead brown kids.

I hope Sanders over-polls in SC by as much as he did in Nevada and actually wins the state. I want to watch them try to justify this crap then.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-26 01:40am

Bad news for Joe:

https://cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/joe ... index.html
(CNN)Bernie Sanders just might win the South Carolina primary on Saturday.

That's the real headline out of a new poll conducted by NBC and Marist College that shows Sanders trailing longtime South Carolina front-runner Joe Biden by a narrow 27% to 23% margin, with five days of campaigning remaining. (Several recent polls have suggested a similar tightening.)

In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

While the top-line number draws the eye, it's a series of other questions sprinkled throughout the poll that seem to suggest a path to a massive upset victory does, in fact, exist.

Consider:
1) Roughly 1 in 3 Biden backers in the poll (32%) said they might vote for another candidate on Saturday. Just more than 1 in 10 Sanders supporters (12%) said the same. That's broadly consistent with what we've seen throughout this primary to date; Sanders has the most committed support, while Biden's has been among the least committed.

2) This poll was in the field from February 18 to February 21. On February 19, the top six Democrats appeared at a debate in Las Vegas. Because of that, the pollsters broke out interviews they conducted before the debate and those they conducted after it. In the pre-debate sample, Biden led Sanders by 10. In the post-debate sample, the two candidates were dead even. That suggests momentum was moving in Sanders' direction even before he won a surprisingly sweeping victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday.

3) Among voters with a clear candidate preference or those who had already voted, more than 7 in 10 (72%) Bernie-backers said they "strongly supported" him. Among those with preference for Biden that strong support was at 61%. Again, a clear passion/enthusiasm gap there.

4) Biden is still the first choice of black voters, but Sanders -- and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer -- are holding their own. Biden takes 35% among black voters to 20% for Sanders and 19% for Steyer. That's a stunning contrast to the 72 percentage-point margin that Sanders lost black voters to Hillary Clinton by in the 2016 South Carolina primary. For Biden to win, he badly needs to run up the score among black voters -- especially because he is losing whites to Sanders in this poll by 8 points. If Sanders and Steyer can combine to win 4 (or so) out of every 10 black votes in Saturday, Biden's path to victory get rockier.

To be clear: Biden still has to be considered the favorite to win on Saturday. He has based his entire campaign on his support in the black community and, more specifically, in the black community in South Carolina. And he's still ahead, according to this NBC-Marist poll as well as plenty of the other available data.

But Sanders has several factors working for him at the moment -- from momentum to the ardency of his support to Steyer's continued appeal in the black community. All of which means that if you are Biden or his campaign, you wanted this primary vote to be held, like, yesterday.

Should Sanders score the upset, it would end Biden's campaign -- whether or not the former vice president chose to acknowledge that fact. And with a weakened (or non-existent) Biden on Super Tuesday and beyond, Sanders would likely become the landing place for many black voters. Which, when combined with his support among white and Latino voters, woud make him incredibly difficult to beat in the Democratic nomination fight.
LoL, they still think Biden has a path to victory.

But seriously, Bernie is nipping at Biden's heels in SC, and even among black voters, he's coming in second, and taking a solid fifth of the vote- which in a field with, what, eight candidates still, isn't a bad showing at all.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-26 02:03am

New national poll has Bernie in double-digit lead for the first time, and LEADING BIDEN BY 3% WITH BLACK VOTERS:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-p ... th-african

Sanders' campaign is hands down the most racially-diverse in the party now. That alone should be a major consideration in his favor.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-26 03:51am

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/202 ... -drop-out/
Friends, we are at the moment that they warned us about, a moment analogous in every way to the one in the 2016 Republican Party that gave us President Trump (except in the minor details of the values being advanced, the personalities involved, and the policies that the winner, if elected, would advocate). Around this time in 2016, fools were refusing to drop out because they thought they had a path forward when all they were doing was impeding yours, like those goofs who are always milling aimlessly around in front of you whenever you are trying to get through an airport to your connection.

Now is the time to act! It is imperative that we concentrate our efforts to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and that is why I see no path forward for my campaign but for my opponents to drop out of the race.

I am calling on all of my moderate, semi-moderate and wealthy opponents to gracefully exit the nomination contest. They are wrong when they say, ”I am the only one who has a chance against him and everyone else needs to drop out.” I am the only one who has a chance against him, and everyone else needs to drop out.

Now is not the time to cling to a handful of delegates as a sign of viability when you are running out of money. Nor is it time to cling to a pile of money when you have yet to win a single delegate. Now is the time to do what I am doing, not what they are doing.

I call on them to stop calling on me to drop out on the grounds that I lack some combination of popular support, a staff, pledged delegates, cash on hand or a path forward. In fact, I am the only one with a path, assuming that several of them drop out, in which case I will be the clear front-runner to stop Sanders. The only reason I have not yet demonstrated my ability to beat him is because everyone else is still here.

I don’t know what they think their paths are! I guess they assume I will drop out, and they will get my support, which will never happen! No, never, not while there is breath in my body or dollar in my bank account. Besides, I have so little support that I do not see how it will help them.
:lol:
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
Bernkastel
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2010-02-18 09:25am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Bernkastel » 2020-02-26 09:16am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-26 01:14am
Missed the debate due to work and volunteer commitments, but got the rundown from my mum as soon as I got home. I gather it was basically everyone including the moderators dog-piling Bernie, except Warren, who kept her attacks on Sanders minimal, backed him up a bit on progressive policy, and mostly focussed her attacks on Bloomberg (kudos to Warren). That's probably indicative, I'd guess, of where things are going to go in the event of a contested convention: Warren urging her delegates to go to Bernie, the rest selling their support to the highest Never Bernie bidder.

Fucking assholes. They have to know that in all probability Bernie is going to be the nominee. Maybe some of them honestly believe he's a dangerous tyrant in the making, or that he'd be sure to lose to Trump, and they're just that scared of him winning that they think almost anything is justified to stop it- but it comes off more as pettiness, stubourness, and greed. And given that the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, it comes off as trying to preemptively spike the future nominee and hand the election to Trump. After all these months, years, of saying how dangerous Trump is, how he's a dictator, how he must be removed from office no matter what... they're helping him out to spite Sanders.

Guess a tax hike or a loss of influence is scarier to them than Australia burning or dead brown kids.

I hope Sanders over-polls in SC by as much as he did in Nevada and actually wins the state. I want to watch them try to justify this crap then.
My impression is that a lot of the moderate/centrist crowd connected to the democratic party really think Bernie Sanders is terrible. I'm sure you've heard about the multiple times Chris Mathews has worked himself to the point of tears while talking about how horrible Bernie is and how horrifying it is that he might be doing well. Plus, that bit where he compared Sander's victory to the Nazi defeat of France. I've also seen the suggestion that there is a lot of denialism at work. It's possible those who are against him at the top likely are doing their best to assure themselves that no one really cares about Sanders that much and that it'll just take one good blow to destroy his support.

Also, I've seen this recently in regards to the recent debate.
Charleston Voters express confusion/frustration over presidential debate accessibility
My Fanfics - I write gay fanfics. Reviews/Feedback will always be greatly appreciated.
My Ko-Fi Page - Currently Seeking Aid in Regards to Transitioning

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6768
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2020-02-26 06:29pm

Bernkastel wrote:
2020-02-26 09:16am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-26 01:14am
Missed the debate due to work and volunteer commitments, but got the rundown from my mum as soon as I got home. I gather it was basically everyone including the moderators dog-piling Bernie, except Warren, who kept her attacks on Sanders minimal, backed him up a bit on progressive policy, and mostly focussed her attacks on Bloomberg (kudos to Warren). That's probably indicative, I'd guess, of where things are going to go in the event of a contested convention: Warren urging her delegates to go to Bernie, the rest selling their support to the highest Never Bernie bidder.

Fucking assholes. They have to know that in all probability Bernie is going to be the nominee. Maybe some of them honestly believe he's a dangerous tyrant in the making, or that he'd be sure to lose to Trump, and they're just that scared of him winning that they think almost anything is justified to stop it- but it comes off more as pettiness, stubourness, and greed. And given that the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, it comes off as trying to preemptively spike the future nominee and hand the election to Trump. After all these months, years, of saying how dangerous Trump is, how he's a dictator, how he must be removed from office no matter what... they're helping him out to spite Sanders.

Guess a tax hike or a loss of influence is scarier to them than Australia burning or dead brown kids.

I hope Sanders over-polls in SC by as much as he did in Nevada and actually wins the state. I want to watch them try to justify this crap then.
My impression is that a lot of the moderate/centrist crowd connected to the democratic party really think Bernie Sanders is terrible. I'm sure you've heard about the multiple times Chris Mathews has worked himself to the point of tears while talking about how horrible Bernie is and how horrifying it is that he might be doing well. Plus, that bit where he compared Sander's victory to the Nazi defeat of France. I've also seen the suggestion that there is a lot of denialism at work. It's possible those who are against him at the top likely are doing their best to assure themselves that no one really cares about Sanders that much and that it'll just take one good blow to destroy his support.

Also, I've seen this recently in regards to the recent debate.
Charleston Voters express confusion/frustration over presidential debate accessibility
While watching Chris Matthews cry like a big man-baby is amusing, it only enables Sanders supporters to engage in ad hominem attacks against the Democratic center, while avoiding having a credible discussion about their candidate's chances. As a result, Bernie Sanders has been starting to amass primary support via the bandwagon effect (i.e. most people want to back a winner;) helped by the fact that his competitors have been reluctant to attack him until very recently.

There are perfectly valid reasons for Not-Sanders Democrats to be very worried about the viability of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump.

For example, the fraction of Americans who'd pick a well-qualified socialist for President has been in the mid-to-upper forties for the last decade ... to be charitable, it's basically a coin flip. One might say that only that many people need to back Bernie Sanders to beat Trump; or that Bernie Sanders' performance in theoretical head-to-head match-ups would put the lie to the surveys that say socialists aren't popular in the United States.

Not so fast, though. (direct link to study)

The reason Sanders may do well in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups with Trump is because he activates young, left-leaning, voters who say they'll support him and nobody else. Which would be fine if they actually showed up to vote; except they're kinda famous for their tendency not to (this is no attack on the commitment of young voters to democratic ideals ... the US election system heavily favors the participation of older voters who are established enough in life to vote on a Tuesday during working hours.)

Worse, Sanders tends to scare away moderates, conservative Democrats, and Trump-skeptical Republicans who would vote for a more moderate candidate. (If anything, he seems to make them more likely to vote for Trump. He definitely increases Republican support for Trump, overall.) For Sanders to overcome that effect, he would need to increase turnout in young voters by 12% over 2008, when Barack Obama turned them out by over 30% above historical norms.

While the primary season is still young (and Super Tuesday may well put this assertion to bed,) there is no evidence that Sanders is actually dramatically increasing turnout among young voters. And in the handful of red/purple states that will actually decide the election, he would desperately need their help to overcome the point I mentioned earlier; i.e. the American antipathy towards socialism.

An internal poll by Bloomberg's camp (so, maybe, take this with a few dump-trucks worth of salt,) indicate that Sanders is even with Trump in battleground states, but when poll respondents are presented with "a list of negative statements about Sanders' ideology and alleged ineffectiveness as a senator", the poll then breaks six points in Trump's favor. The study I linked to above suggested something similar ... when their experiment showed participants three attacks on each prospective candidate, they found that the moderates did better against Trump than Sanders did.

The thing that makes down-ballot moderates nervous is that 39% of respondents in the Bloomberg polls indicated they would be 39% less likely to vote for a Democrat for their local House seat if Sanders and his platform were atop the ticket. There is also the potential for Bernie Sanders to activate casual Republican and center-right independent voters against him ... only 17% of Republicans (and half of independents) find a socialist for President acceptable; so if they were feeling off-put by Trump's naked corruption, they might hold their noses and vote for him to keep Sanders out of the White House.

None of the above, of course, is likely to stop the Sanders train to Milwaukee in any meaningful way. His opposition is too fragmented and self-serving to do more than present ready-made sound-bites for GOP attack ads in the general election. While Biden is going to win South Carolina, and is liable to do so by a lot (as his biggest threat, Tom Steyer, has shown a pretty poor poll-to-vote conversion ratio; and gave no credible reason to anyone watching last night's debate why he should still exist as a candidate,) Biden winning South Carolina will surprise no-one; and is already priced into the notion that Bernie Sanders will enjoy front-runner status going into, and coming out of, Super Tuesday.

I voted for him in New Hampshire, and assuming he doesn't get replaced by some party apparatchik at a brokered convention, I'll vote for him in the general; but I'm not going to pretend he doesn't have problems.

User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22194
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Mr Bean » 2020-02-26 07:16pm

GrandmasterTerywnn wrote: An internal poll by Bloomberg's camp (so, maybe, take this with a few dump-trucks worth of salt,) indicate that Sanders is even with Trump in battleground states, but when poll respondents are presented with "a list of negative statements about Sanders' ideology and alleged ineffectiveness as a senator", the poll then breaks six points in Trump's favor. The study I linked to above suggested something similar ... when their experiment showed participants three attacks on each prospective candidate, they found that the moderates did better against Trump than Sanders did.
Here's the big thing, check 538 who are kind enough to collate polls. Point is Trump loses a lot of match ups. Bloomberg little internal poll is a major outlier never mind it supports something Bloomberg is desperate to prove because otherwise his run makes no sense.

I think it's fair to point out at this point that President Donald Trump is not by any definition a traditional Republican politician so a lot of the 3rd way only moderates win anything establishment thinking is based on the massive misconception that this year is already like any other year. Need I remind you of 2016 where compared to 2012 Several toss ups went Trumps way. Because we have more election years than 2008, we have twelve other modern elections to look at meaning out data set is fairly small but even within that set the Moderate Democrat (Bill Clinton Part 1 and 2) won and two elections where the moderate lost (2004 John Kerry, 2016, Hillary Clinton) with two other races (2000 with Gore, 1980 with Jimmy Carter) that don't fall into as neat a category. The only real Progressive nominated (Mondale 1984) lost and lost badly, but then so did Carter 4 years before. The Democratic angle tends to be Mondale proved progressive is dead on arrival, never Ronald Regan was an incredibly strong Presidential nominee both times he ran.

*Edit as some googling shows Al Gore himself claims to be a centrist (IE moderate) and while Jimmy Carter was a progressive Governor he claims to have been a centrist Presidential hopeful which brings the grand total to.... if we count Obama as a hybrid

1980 Centrist/Moderate-Lost
1984 Progressive-Lost
1988 Centrist/Moderate-Lost
1992 Centrist/Moderate-Won
1996-Centrist/Moderate Won
2000 Centrist/Moderate-Lost
2004 Centrist/Moderate-Lost
2008 Obama-Won
2012 Obama-Won
2016 Centrist/Moderate-Lost

As I mentioned there's only one person who out and out calls themselves a Progressive and that's Mondale. Everyone else from Carter to Clinton calls themselves a Centrist or a Moderate, Obama tends to call himself and everything but I'd count him under the Progressive banner but not all agree on that.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-26 09:33pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
2020-02-26 06:29pm
Bernkastel wrote:
2020-02-26 09:16am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-02-26 01:14am
Missed the debate due to work and volunteer commitments, but got the rundown from my mum as soon as I got home. I gather it was basically everyone including the moderators dog-piling Bernie, except Warren, who kept her attacks on Sanders minimal, backed him up a bit on progressive policy, and mostly focussed her attacks on Bloomberg (kudos to Warren). That's probably indicative, I'd guess, of where things are going to go in the event of a contested convention: Warren urging her delegates to go to Bernie, the rest selling their support to the highest Never Bernie bidder.

Fucking assholes. They have to know that in all probability Bernie is going to be the nominee. Maybe some of them honestly believe he's a dangerous tyrant in the making, or that he'd be sure to lose to Trump, and they're just that scared of him winning that they think almost anything is justified to stop it- but it comes off more as pettiness, stubourness, and greed. And given that the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, it comes off as trying to preemptively spike the future nominee and hand the election to Trump. After all these months, years, of saying how dangerous Trump is, how he's a dictator, how he must be removed from office no matter what... they're helping him out to spite Sanders.

Guess a tax hike or a loss of influence is scarier to them than Australia burning or dead brown kids.

I hope Sanders over-polls in SC by as much as he did in Nevada and actually wins the state. I want to watch them try to justify this crap then.
My impression is that a lot of the moderate/centrist crowd connected to the democratic party really think Bernie Sanders is terrible. I'm sure you've heard about the multiple times Chris Mathews has worked himself to the point of tears while talking about how horrible Bernie is and how horrifying it is that he might be doing well. Plus, that bit where he compared Sander's victory to the Nazi defeat of France. I've also seen the suggestion that there is a lot of denialism at work. It's possible those who are against him at the top likely are doing their best to assure themselves that no one really cares about Sanders that much and that it'll just take one good blow to destroy his support.

Also, I've seen this recently in regards to the recent debate.
Charleston Voters express confusion/frustration over presidential debate accessibility
While watching Chris Matthews cry like a big man-baby is amusing, it only enables Sanders supporters to engage in ad hominem attacks against the Democratic center, while avoiding having a credible discussion about their candidate's chances. As a result, Bernie Sanders has been starting to amass primary support via the bandwagon effect (i.e. most people want to back a winner;) helped by the fact that his competitors have been reluctant to attack him until very recently.

There are perfectly valid reasons for Not-Sanders Democrats to be very worried about the viability of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump.

For example, the fraction of Americans who'd pick a well-qualified socialist for President has been in the mid-to-upper forties for the last decade ... to be charitable, it's basically a coin flip. One might say that only that many people need to back Bernie Sanders to beat Trump; or that Bernie Sanders' performance in theoretical head-to-head match-ups would put the lie to the surveys that say socialists aren't popular in the United States.

Not so fast, though. (direct link to study)

The reason Sanders may do well in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups with Trump is because he activates young, left-leaning, voters who say they'll support him and nobody else. Which would be fine if they actually showed up to vote; except they're kinda famous for their tendency not to (this is no attack on the commitment of young voters to democratic ideals ... the US election system heavily favors the participation of older voters who are established enough in life to vote on a Tuesday during working hours.)

Worse, Sanders tends to scare away moderates, conservative Democrats, and Trump-skeptical Republicans who would vote for a more moderate candidate. (If anything, he seems to make them more likely to vote for Trump. He definitely increases Republican support for Trump, overall.) For Sanders to overcome that effect, he would need to increase turnout in young voters by 12% over 2008, when Barack Obama turned them out by over 30% above historical norms.

While the primary season is still young (and Super Tuesday may well put this assertion to bed,) there is no evidence that Sanders is actually dramatically increasing turnout among young voters. And in the handful of red/purple states that will actually decide the election, he would desperately need their help to overcome the point I mentioned earlier; i.e. the American antipathy towards socialism.

An internal poll by Bloomberg's camp (so, maybe, take this with a few dump-trucks worth of salt,) indicate that Sanders is even with Trump in battleground states, but when poll respondents are presented with "a list of negative statements about Sanders' ideology and alleged ineffectiveness as a senator", the poll then breaks six points in Trump's favor. The study I linked to above suggested something similar ... when their experiment showed participants three attacks on each prospective candidate, they found that the moderates did better against Trump than Sanders did.

The thing that makes down-ballot moderates nervous is that 39% of respondents in the Bloomberg polls indicated they would be 39% less likely to vote for a Democrat for their local House seat if Sanders and his platform were atop the ticket. There is also the potential for Bernie Sanders to activate casual Republican and center-right independent voters against him ... only 17% of Republicans (and half of independents) find a socialist for President acceptable; so if they were feeling off-put by Trump's naked corruption, they might hold their noses and vote for him to keep Sanders out of the White House.

None of the above, of course, is likely to stop the Sanders train to Milwaukee in any meaningful way. His opposition is too fragmented and self-serving to do more than present ready-made sound-bites for GOP attack ads in the general election. While Biden is going to win South Carolina, and is liable to do so by a lot (as his biggest threat, Tom Steyer, has shown a pretty poor poll-to-vote conversion ratio; and gave no credible reason to anyone watching last night's debate why he should still exist as a candidate,) Biden winning South Carolina will surprise no-one; and is already priced into the notion that Bernie Sanders will enjoy front-runner status going into, and coming out of, Super Tuesday.

I voted for him in New Hampshire, and assuming he doesn't get replaced by some party apparatchik at a brokered convention, I'll vote for him in the general; but I'm not going to pretend he doesn't have problems.
Interesting article on this:

https://vox.com/policy-and-politics/202 ... rates-data
The most important factor for Democratic voters in the 2020 primary is electability: A majority of Democrats say they would rather nominate a candidate who can beat President Trump than a candidate who agrees with them on the issues.

So which candidate is most likely to beat Trump? Decades of evidence from academic studies suggests that more moderate nominees tend to perform better in general elections than more ideologically extreme nominees. For example, Democratic US House candidates who supported Medicare-for-all fared approximately 2.2 percentage points worse in the 2018 midterms than candidates in similar districts who did not.

But early polling testing how Democratic nominees would fare against Trump suggests a different conclusion: Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing candidate in the Democratic primary, polls as well against Trump as his more moderate competitors in surveys. Democratic voters have appeared to take these polls to heart, as a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Democrats believe Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump.

Why does Sanders look similarly electable to leading moderates in polls against Trump? We fielded a 40,000-person survey in early 2020 that helps us look into this question with more precision. We asked Americans to choose between Trump and one of the leading Democratic candidates: Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Mike Bloomberg.

So that respondents would not strategically claim to only support their chosen candidate against Trump, we only asked each respondent about one Democratic candidate. The surveys were fielded by Lucid, an online market research company that provides nationally representative samples of Americans.

Our data (laid out in an academic working paper here) also found what polls show: that Sanders is similarly electable to more moderate candidates. But, on closer inspection, it shows that this finding relies on some remarkable assumptions about youth turnout that past elections suggest are questionable.

We found that nominating Sanders would drive many Americans who would otherwise vote for a moderate Democrat to vote for Trump, especially otherwise Trump-skeptical Republicans.

Republicans are more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated: Approximately 2 percent of Republicans choose Trump over Sanders but desert Trump when we pit him against a more moderate Democrat like Buttigieg, Biden, or Bloomberg.

Democrats and independents are also slightly more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated. Swing voters may be rare — but their choices between candidates often determine elections, and many appear to favor Trump over Sanders but not over other Democrats.


Nominating Sanders increases the share of Republicans voting for Trump, but reduces the share of independents and Democrats who say they’ll stay at home. Broockman / Kalla 2020
Despite losing these voters to Trump, Sanders appears in our survey data to be similarly electable to the moderates, at least at first blush. Why? Mainly because 11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated — but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated.

The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate. (Warren appears to lose at least as many Republicans as Sanders but does not seem to benefit from any compensating enthusiasm from young voters.)

Sanders himself has been clear that his strategy for beating Trump is to massively boost turnout, especially among young people — and young people in our data indeed say they would turn out at much higher rates for him.

But for Sanders to do as well as a moderate Democrat against Trump in November by stimulating youth turnout, his nomination would need to boost turnout of young left-leaning voters enormously — according to our data, one in six left-leaning young people who otherwise wouldn’t vote would need to turn out because Sanders was nominated. There are good reasons to doubt that Sanders’s nomination would produce a youth turnout surge this large.

The reason Sanders appears equally electable
These “Bernie or bust” voters that come off the sidelines for Sanders in our survey are almost entirely limited to one group: Democrats and independents under age 35. These voters are about 11 percentage points more likely to say they would vote for Democrats if Sanders is nominated — and almost all of them say they would not vote at all or vote third party if he’s not on the ballot.

However, the “Bernie or bust” phenomenon appears almost entirely limited to left-leaning young people, who are usually a small share of the overall electorate. This stands in contrast to many theories of Sanders’s electoral appeal: For example, whites without a college degree — a demographic some speculate Sanders could win over — are actually more likely to say they will vote for Trump against Sanders than against the other Democrats. The same is true of the rest of the electorate, except left-leaning young people.


Young left-leaning voters are the only group whose turnout Sanders increases. Broockman/Kalla 2020
This finding in our data mirrors many other surveys: Morning Consult finds dramatic increases in young Americans’ stated turnout intentions when asked how they would vote in matchups between Sanders and Trump.

How huge of a turnout surge does Sanders need to be as electable as a moderate?
The case that Bernie Sanders is just as electable as the more moderate candidates thus appears to rest on a leap of faith: that youth voter turnout would surge in the general election by double digits if and only if Bernie Sanders is nominated, compensating for the voters his nomination pushes to Trump among the rest of the electorate.

There are reasons to doubt a Sanders-driven youth turnout surge of this size would materialize. First, people who promise in surveys they will vote often don’t, meaning the turnout estimates that Sanders’s electability case rests upon are probably extremely inaccurate. Second, such a turnout surge is large in comparison to other effects on turnout. For example, Sanders would need to stimulate a youth turnout boost much larger than the turnout boost Barack Obama’s presence on the ballot stimulated among black voters in 2008.

Third, Sanders’s electability case requires this 11 percentage point turnout increase among young voters in 2020 to occur on top of any turnout increase that would otherwise occur if another Democrat were nominated.

If the turnout of all age groups increases from 2016 to 2020 (as happened from 2014 to 2018), then the turnout among young people must increase by 11 percentage points above and beyond this broader trend, and must do so solely due to Sanders’s presence on the ticket. Finally, youth voter turnout doesn’t usually go up or down by nearly as much as 11 percentage points from election to election; the Sanders boost would have to be truly unprecedented.

And this enormous 11 percentage point turnout boost is only enough to make Sanders as electable as the more moderate candidates, given the other votes he loses to Trump. For him to be the most electable Democratic candidate based on his ability to inspire youth turnout, Sanders’s nomination would need to increase youth turnout by even more.


According to our survey, Sanders would have to boost youth turnout far above historical levels to be as electable as a moderate nominee. Broockman/Kalla 2020
There is no way to be sure whether Sanders’s nomination would produce this historic youth turnout surge — but it seems doubtful. Turnout in the 2020 primaries so far has not exceeded 2008 levels, including among young voters. If anything, research suggests the opposite is more likely to occur: In response to an extreme Democratic nominee, Republicans could be inspired to turn out at higher rates to oppose him.

What if Sanders’s nomination doesn’t stimulate youth turnout enough to offset the votes it would lose to Trump? In an academic working paper based on this survey, we consider this possibility.

In one analysis, we disregard what voters say about whether they would vote, and use their demographics and party affiliation to infer the shape of the likely electorate. In particular, we base their guesses about who will vote on the demographics of the 2016 voting electorate instead of what people tell us about whether they will vote (and assume people who don’t list a preference will vote for their party). With this approach, Sanders trails all three leading moderate candidates in head-to-head polls against Trump.

Would Republican attacks knock the more moderate candidates down to Sanders’s level?
One concern about our findings is that Republicans who say they would vote for Biden or Buttigieg might not really do so in November, after the general election campaign has heated up. After months of sustained attacks from Trump and Republicans throughout the general election, would the more moderate candidates still be more electable than Sanders?

To examine this possibility, we first conducted an experiment to identify effective attacks against each of the Democratic candidates. For example, Biden’s historical support for freezing Social Security benefits undermined his support, but hearing about Buttigieg’s sexual orientation and the fact that he met his husband online did not decrease his support.

Then, to examine the resiliency of each Democrat’s support in the general election in the face of effective attacks, we showed some of our survey respondents the three attacks that were most effective against each Democrat before asking them who they would vote for in a contest between that Democrat and Trump.

After showing three attacks against each candidate, we find that Sanders would still need the same large youth turnout surge to overcome his deficit relative to the more moderate candidates against Trump. When we analyze the data using the same approach described above that disregards what voters say about whether they will vote, we find that, after being shown the attacks, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Biden still do better against Trump than Sanders does. (Warren still performs even worse than Sanders against Trump in this test. We did not include Klobuchar in this survey.)

Prediction markets have been sounding the alarm, too, as Trump’s probability of winning reelection has steadily risen as Sanders has looked increasingly likely to be the Democratic nominee.

Early polls are never a surefire guide to what will happen in an election months later. But Democrats should not be very reassured by early polls that find Sanders faring as well against Trump as the more moderate candidates: These numbers may only look decent for Sanders because they assume he will inspire a youth turnout miracle. Our survey data reveals voters of all parties moving to Trump if Sanders is nominated, a liability papered over by young voters who claim they would be inspired to vote by Sanders alone.

The gamble Democrats supporting Sanders based on his early polls against Trump must be ready to make is that, despite the evidence to the contrary, the lowest-participating segment of the electorate will turn out at remarkably high rates because Sanders is nominated.

David Broockman is an associate professor of political science at the University of California Berkeley. Joshua Kalla is an assistant professor of political science and statistics & data science at Yale University.

Donation disclosure: Broockman has donated $27 to Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign, $5 to Julián Castro’s 2020 campaign, $5 to Amy Klobuchar’s 2020 campaign, and $2 to Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign. Kalla has donated $250 to Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign and $100 to Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 campaign.
Sanders is a gamble, definitely. He has his baggage, for sure, and his viability is largely predicated (assuming nothing happens to miraculously tank Trump before the election) on him inspiring phenomenal youth turnout in the right places.

Where I disagree with the Centrists is in thinking that anyone else is necessarily a safer bet. The fact that every single other candidate is weaker than Sanders in the primary does not speak well for their viability in the general, to me. Biden is weak, and Putin/Trump already have their kompromat on him ready to go with the manufactured Ukraine scandal. Bloomberg would be a clusterfuck. Buttigieg can't crack 15% outside of a few small, heavily white states. I had high hopes for Warren as a uniter, but she hasn't polled terribly well in general election match-ups, and she hasn't managed to get a broad, enthusiastic coalition like Sanders' behind her in the primary.

There is no safe option here. Any candidate could lose. Of course to some extent that's true of every race. Its just a question of picking the best gamble. But at least Sanders has a devoted base, a clear, easily-communicated core message, and a sense of energy to his campaign. And those are things that, by and large, no one else on the Democratic side has right now.

Of course, there is another factor to consider. This isn't just another election. Anyone who's been paying attention knows Trump is trying to rig it and, failing that, will probably refuse to accept the results and step down. Which means the traditional peaceful transfer of power is very much in doubt. So to be blunt, we also need to think about:

a) Who will have the backbone not to concede an obviously rigged election in the name of "bipartisanship" or "stability".

b) Who will be able to mobilize the most protesters to take to the streets on short notice post-election.

c) Who will have the most support from the armed forces, if they end up being the ones to decide the outcome.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-27 12:43am

https://cnbc.com/2020/02/26/megadonor-u ... nders.html
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders, particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to encourage them to back a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Schwartz, the CEO of BLS Investments, told CNBC that in recent days he’s been trying to speak with Pelosi and Schumer about making a pick, in the hope that voters will follow their lead and end up denying Sanders the party’s presidential nomination.

“We should know who is the best person to beat Donald Trump, and with all due respect, Bernie Sanders cannot beat Trump,” he explained, describing the message he has relayed to the two Democratic leaders.

Schwartz noted he has yet to hear back from them but insisted that, with Super Tuesday under a week away, party leaders have to take a stand now before Sanders captures the nomination — and, in his view, takes down the party.

“They have good political reasons not to endorse until the primary is over, but I think we are losing too much if we give up on this position,” he added.

Although he isn’t insisting on a particular candidate for Pelosi and Schumer to get behind, he said that he thinks the two best options, for now, are either former Vice President Joe Biden or former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a billionaire funding his own candidacy for president. Schwartz is currently backing Biden’s campaign for president.

Schwartz’s concerns to leaders are being echoed by many Democratic leaders, including Bloomberg, whose campaign has ramped up its attacks on Sanders. There are also concerns among establishment Democrats that Sanders could hurt congressional candidates down the ballot if he were to be at the top of the party’s ticket in November.

Representatives for Pelosi and Schumer did not respond to a request for comment. Both publicly signaled on Wednesday that they would be comfortable with Sanders leading the Democratic ticket in November.

Schwartz’s links to Democratic leaders could move them in the direction he hopes they will go. He has been a key financier for congressional Democrats in the 2020 election cycle. He has donated over $885,000 to the House Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to helping Democrats get elected to the House of Representatives, while giving more than $620,000 to the Senate Majority PAC, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

During the 2018 congressional midterms, Schwartz gave more than $3 million to Democratic causes. The New York Times reported in April that Schwartz was organizing dinners on how to handle Sanders’ run for president with Pelosi, Schumer, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; presidential candidate former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress.

Sanders is currently leading in two of the biggest states that are scheduled next week on delegate-rich Super Tuesday. In both California and Texas, Real Clear Politics polling averages show Sanders leading the field.

Sanders has also been picking up delegates in the buildup to the South Carolina primary. He dominated during the Nevada caucuses and squeaked out a victory in the New Hampshire primary after narrowly losing the delegate edge to Buttigieg in Iowa.
Hopefully the party leadership has the sense not to damage their credibility, and ability to unify the party post-primary, by wading into this. For once Obama's caution is right on the mark.

Not that I think this would stop Sanders from getting the nomination. I think it would be perceived as a desperate attempt to bolster failing campaigns out of fear of Sanders, and at this point it would just make him look stronger and galvanize his support.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-27 01:01am

Sanders campaign is planning a sweeping series of executive orders as soon as he takes office. Potential orders would include declaring a national climate emergency, allowing cheaper drug importations from Canada, and getting the DoJ to back off on Marijuana. There has also previously been talk of executive orders relating to expanding DACA and halting all (or nearly all) deportations, IIRC.

https://cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/ber ... index.html
(CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders has instructed his team of campaign advisers to draw up a list of executive actions he can take immediately upon entering the White House as he embarks on what would be a challenging effort to enact his ambitious agenda.

The slate of potential day one directives encompasses a range of campaign promises, from declaring a climate change a national emergency, to allowing the US to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and ordering his Justice Department to effectively legalize marijuana, according to a Washington Post report.

A Sanders aide with direct knowledge of the internal deliberations described the menu to CNN as a "working document" and said Sanders himself has been personally involved in the process. The goal, the aide said, would be to take action on a variety of issues that are within the purview of executive authority even before Sanders' Cabinet officials are confirmed by the Senate.

Sanders has faced questions throughout the primary campaign, which kicks off in earnest on Monday with the Iowa caucuses, over how he would implement his broad agenda in the face of opposition from Republicans in the Senate and some dissenters within the Democratic Party. He has mostly remained circumspect on issues related to process and been hesitant to endorse any plan to blow up the filibuster in the Senate, instead suggesting he would attempt to use the budget reconciliation process to pass his trademark "Medicare for All" legislation.

Asked by the New York Times editorial board how he would contend with a Senate run by Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sanders -- as he often argues on the campaign trail -- said he would seek to harness popular support to apply overwhelming outside pressure on GOP lawmakers.

"So to me, what my administration is about is not sitting with Mitch in the Oval Office or wherever it is, negotiating something," Sanders said. "It is rallying the American people around an agenda that they already support. All right? This is, I think, what makes me a little bit different than other candidates, and that is not only will I be commander in chief, I will be organizer in chief."
Sanders has frequently pointed to public polling that shows his policies are more popular with voters than they are, currently, on Capitol Hill.

"And I think the agenda that we have brought out in almost every respect is supported by the American people," he told the Times editorial board. "So one of my first stops, by the way, will be in Kentucky, a state that is struggling very hard. One of the poorest. I love the people in Kentucky."

Plans to reinstate DACA, the Obama-era program that grants legal status to undocumented immigrants whose parents brought them into the US as children, putting an immediate stop to the construction of President Donald Trump's border wall and opening the country up a greater number of refugees are common among the Democratic primary candidates.

There is debate within the Democratic Party over how to pursue even the candidates' shared agenda items. Former Vice President Joe Biden has staked his campaign on the promise he can most effectively win over Republicans on some issues, and has warned that overusing executive action could lead to an abuse of power. But Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been the most aggressive, pledging to eliminate the legislative filibuster as part of her strategy for delivering on her agenda from her first day in the White House.
I'm not thrilled with the general trend toward government by executive edict instead of legislation, but that seems to be the system we're dealing with, for the time being. At the least it should provide some answer to the question "How will Sanders get anything done".
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

AniThyng
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2694
Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
Contact:

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by AniThyng » 2020-02-27 01:20am

Sounds like the kind of thing that would add strength to both his supporters AND his opponents.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character :P

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-27 01:56am

True indeed, but I don't think a non-divisive President is possible at this time in history. If we make it through the year without a coup or a civil war breaking out, I'll consider it a lucky outcome. We'll just have to hope that the nearly-even split of the country falls just a little in our favor this time around.

Bipartisan consensus and compromise is a nice idea, but it only works if a) both sides are willing to compromise and meet more or less in the middle, and b) one side isn't holding views so abhorrent that meeting in the middle is still awful. When I hear Biden's talk of bipartisan consensus with Republicans, I hear self-delusions from an old man who can't accept that it ain't the world he grew up in any more.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-27 04:08am

New poll suddenly gives Biden an 18-point lead in SC, with Steyer a distant second and Sanders third at 13%:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... olina-poll

I wondered why this poll was giving Biden such good results and Sanders so poor, compared to some other recent ones. Then I got to this:
The results of the survey were not weighted for age, sex or ethnicity, pollsters said. Three percent of respondents were under 25, 14 percent were under 40, 20 percent were under 54, 21 percent were under 64, and 43 percent were 65 or older.
No shit, if you poll overwhelmingly among old people, Sanders does worse.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20335
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-02-27 04:22am

Its frightening, how for all the planning, all the campaigning, all the worrying over who's more electable, it might all come down to what month the Coronavirus pandemic happens to blow over in:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02 ... onomy.html
Donald Trump is not known for downplaying foreign threats. And yet, as the Wuhan coronavirus triggered quarantines throughout China, moved into South Korea, Italy, the United States, and at least 36 other countries — while throttling global supply chains and depressing foreign markets — the fearmonger-in-chief remained sanguine. At the World Economic Forum in late January, Trump assured the gathered plutocrats that the virus was “under control.” Three weeks, hundreds of deaths, and one giant stock market plunge later, the president’s song remained the same.

“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump tweeted Monday. “We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

The source of Trump’s uncharacteristic reluctance to talk up a border-crossing menace to American public safety isn’t hard to discern. As several news outlets have reported over the past 48 hours, the president fears that panic over the looming pandemic could chill America’s hot economy — and nullify his strongest reelection argument in the process.

A pandemic is nothing if not a reminder of our species’ limited capacity to anticipate the future. If a microscopic organism spreading from a bat to a human body can bring the global economy to the brink of crisis, then who knows what other unknown unknowns are waiting to surface between now and November 3. To accept that we are all hurtling ever deeper into a moonless night, our train jostling and switching tracks in response to forces we can’t comprehend, let alone foresee, would be to surrender to a nihilistic fatalism (and, more critically, put horse-race pundits out of business).

So while no one can tell you where the COVID-19 outbreak is headed — or whether Trump’s fears about its political implications will prove prescient — here are five ways the virus could potentially impact the 2020 election:

1) The pandemic could sicken the economy, thereby sending the Trump presidency to an early grave.
Today Only! Only $2 for unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York LEARN MORE »
The White House has good reason for sweating this scenario. Although the president commands the worshipful affections of the GOP faithful, he has little personal appeal to those beyond the Church of Donald Trump and the Latter-Day Schlemiels. The reason he has managed to keep his approval rating in the mid-to-high 40s — and his odds for reelection north of 50 percent — is that he has presided over a steadily improving economy for nearly the entirety of his first term. For months, America’s unemployment rate has been hovering near half-century lows. Wages have been rising (slowly but surely) even at the bottom of the labor market. Consumer confidence is hitting post-recession highs, Americans are expressing “record-high optimism” about their own personal finances (59 percent say they are better off now than last year, while 74 percent expect to be better off next year than they are now), and 55 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s stewardship of the economy.

All this has enabled a small but significant segment of swing voters to look past their antipathy for Trump’s tweets and deportment. The public’s esteem for the president’s economic management has always oustripped its approval for the man himself. But as the labor market has grown ever-tighter, Trump’s job approval rating has ticked up toward all-time highs. If his favorability rating remains frozen in place, while the economy continues on his current trajectory, most fundamentals-based election models would project his reelection.

By the same token, given his exceptional personal unpopularity, a reversal of economic fortune would be liable to bruise Trump even worse than it would a typical incumbent. And there’s reason to fear a global recession could be one symptom of a coronavirus pandemic (as recent market developments have indicated).

Some early analyses of the economic threat posed by COVID-19 found comfort in the precedents set by the 2003 SARS outbreak (which was itself a different form of coronavirus). In that instance, U.S. financial markets weathered the six-month outbreak, and then rode a spike of catch-up growth after the epidemic abated. But the SARS precedent is an unreliable guide for the present crisis in multiple respects. Beyond the fact that this coronavirus is much more contagious than its predecessor, China is far more central to the global economy than it was 17 years ago. The nation’s share of global trade has swelled from 5.3 percent in 2003 to 12.8 percent last year. It is now the world’s manufacturing mecca, and a central node in myriad global supply chains. Meanwhile, thanks to its income gains over the past two decades, China is no longer merely a supplier to American firms, but also a key consumer market.

And it was already battling slowing growth and mounting debt loads before an epidemic forced it to lockdown entire cities, constraining the consumption of hundreds of millions of people, and pushing countless small businesses to the brink of bankruptcy. Even if the virus had been contained within the country, its resultant disruptions would have been sufficient to dampen the outlook for global growth by a modest but significant degree.

And the virus has not been contained. In fact, coronavirus cases are spiking in Iran, South Korea, and Italy, where it has incapacitated the commercial center of Milan.

COVID-19 isn’t exceptionally lethal, but, for that very reason, it is exceptionally contagious. Ordinary influenza viruses kill about 0.1 percent of those infected. The H5N1 avian flu virus had a fatality rate around 60 percent. COVID-19, by contrast, appears to kill a bit less than 2 percent of those who contract it. This makes a coronavirus diagnosis less harrowing for the individual, but it also makes the bug’s emergence a more profound threat to global public health than many more fatal ailments. The severely ill don’t travel much; the dead shake few hands. But the median victim of coronavirus may not know that they are sick at all for the first few days the virus is incubating inside them. And at least some reports suggest individuals can spread the disease even before they are symptomatic. Regardless, many who do present with symptoms will be unable to distinguish the disease from the common cold. In other words, the virus is nonlethal enough to spread widely, but sufficiently deadly to be experienced as a public health crisis and mass killer of the elderly or already infirm.

China’s heavy-handed quarantine measures appear to have been somewhat effective. New cases in the country are declining. But it’s not clear whether this trend will survive the resumption of business as usual, which the Chinese authorities are understandably anxious to commence. Meanwhile, COVID-19’s arrival in Milan — a financial hub and tourist haven frequented by border-hopping E.U. elites — threatens to hasten the its ascent to the status of an official global pandemic.

Ryan Avent, a columnist for The Economist, outlines the potential economic fallout of this increasingly likely scenario:

Beijing is understandably eager to get things up and running again. But now there are serious outbreaks elsewhere in the world. Operating the economy at anything like its normal level therefore opens China to the very real possibility of infections flowing back into the country, and triggering a whole new phase of the epidemic. And even if China were to completely ignore that threat, getting back to 100% operation would be very difficult given the outbreak-related interruptions now coming to other large economies and Chinese trading partners. It is hard to picture a scenario in which China does not continue to operate well below its capacity for at least another month: and you can add to that every day the global spread gets worse rather than better.

Of course, as costly as an idled China is, the rest of the world features in the picture now. And honestly, we have very little idea how this is likely to play out. In terms of the nature of what we’re facing, well, it’s a supply shock: a reduction in the capacity of the economy to produce goods and services, as opposed to a drop in people’s willingness to spend. Shuttered factories, canceled events: those all represent obstacles to the creation of GDP. When you say supply shock, those who think of anything tend to think of the 1970s and the aftereffects of the oil crises. But as I explain in my most recent column, many—and perhaps most—supply shocks don’t look like that. They are more likely to feature shattered confidence, tumbling stock prices and deflationary pressures…The world has never experienced a supply shock with this disruptive potential in the era of hyperglobalization.

Avent’s most alarming observation may be this: The past decades of demand-induced slumps have conditioned us to expect we can stimulate our way out of hard economic times. The market’s initial nonplussed reaction to the burgeoning epidemic earlier this month was at least partly predicated on a faith in the Federal Reserve’s capacity to turn economic tides through new waves of easy money. But no central bank can print stable supply chains, or hospital beds, or healthy, fearless workers.

Thus, it is not difficult then to see how COVID-19 could make the Trump campaign into one of its most famous victims. Especially since:

2) The pandemic could throw a spotlight on the Trump administration’s criminal negligence.
Thanks to the economic tailwinds he inherited (and the marginalization of Puerto Rico in American public life), Donald Trump has paid little political price for his slothful ignorance or commitment to purging the executive branch of all experts save for those who specialize in sycophancy.

But the coronavirus could change that. In fact, a COVID-19 pandemic seems almost tailor-made to expose the abject irresponsibility of the sitting president, and rendering his negligence politically salient.

Since taking office, Trump has:

• Tried to slash national health spending by $15 billion.

• Cut the disease-fighting budgets of DHS, NSC, HHS, and CDC — paring back the global health section of the latter so profoundly, it went from operating in 49 nations to just 10.

• Allowed the ranks of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to steadily erode (after trying and failing to shrink its budget by 40 percent).

• Eliminated the federal government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund.

• Shut down the National Security Council’s entire global health security unit.

But what the Trump administration has lacked in general health-crisis preparedness, it has absolutely not made up for in acute crisis management. As already mentioned, since the onset of the outbreak, the president has baselessly assured the public that the virus was contained, undermining his administration’s ability to credibly counter potential conspiracy theories or misinformation about the public health crisis. Meanwhile, the administration overruled CDC scientists (and the president’s unknown preference) by evacuating 14 Americans on a cruise ship plagued by coronavirus — and then bringing them back to the U.S. aboard a plane filled with other noninfected Americans, who therefore spent hours sharing recycled air with the contagious.

The administration’s ineptide appears to be deepening in tandem with the crisis. On Tuesday, the CDC’s immunization chief warned Americans that the coming “disruption to everyday life may be severe,” even as National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow assured the public that the virus had been “contained” — or at least, containment efforts had been “pretty close to airtight.”

The U.S. has “contained” the coronavirus, NEC Director Larry Kudlow says. “Pretty close to airtight.” https://t.co/LJKSIghL7q pic.twitter.com/mkRzCrHMM1

— CNBC (@CNBC) February 25, 2020
Meanwhile, in testimony before the Senate, Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf revealed that he (ostensibly) knows less about the Wuhan coronavirus than anyone who has read two articles about it.

DHS Secretary Chad Wolf claims the mortality rate for coronavirus is similar to the flu, both at about 2%. Senator Kennedy says "are you sure of that?" and the secretary doubles down.

The mortality rate for seasonal flu is closer to 0.1%: pic.twitter.com/Fo6nfQrbni

— Matt Novak (@paleofuture) February 25, 2020
All of which is to say, COVID-19 may well depreciate the president’s primary political asset (the strength of the U.S. economy) while drastically increasing the salience of his chief electoral liability (the fact that he is comprehensively unfit to faithfully execute the responsibilities of his office).

3) Alternatively, the virus just might deliver Trump a perfectly timed economic boost that all but guarantees his reelection.
This scenario looks less likely today than it did two weeks ago. But it remains possible that a combination of public health efforts, warmer weather, and the end of the school year (children’s classrooms being exceptionally conducive to the spread of illness) will kill off the pandemic by mid-summer. In which case, if the foundations of global growth remain intact (a big if, to be sure), the pandemic could ultimately redound to Trump’s benefit by yielding a surge of comeback growth, just as voters head to the polls.

As Axios reported in early February:

S&P Global expects the outbreak to “stabilize globally in April 2020, with virtually no new transmissions in May.” And most economists predict the world will get back to business as usual by the summer — and make up for lost time with accelerated economic growth in the second half of the year.

“We’re likely to return not just to normal but above normal because of the U.S.-China trade deal,” Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco, tells Axios. “We got this really nice boost of sentiment coming from that phase one deal, and literally within a few days of that, global media started reporting on coronavirus … Once contagion is under control and stabilized, I think we’ll see a pop in consumer spending and corporate spending.”

As the political scientists Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen have documented, voters do reward incumbents who preside over strong economic conditions in the months immediately before an election.

4) The pandemic could lend credence to Trump’s anti-globalist worldview.
As the Council on Foreign Relations warns:

[G]lobalism, embraced by China but rejected by the Donald J. Trump administration, is likely to be the biggest victim of the pandemic. A highly connected global economy not only facilitates the spread of the coronavirus, but also exacerbates the negative economic impact. Open economies and economies with a prominent service sector (e.g., tourism) are particularly vulnerable to economic shocks associated with a pandemic. The economic losses, in turn, will strengthen forces of protectionism and isolationism. As a result of the shortened supply chain, production worldwide may become more localized or regionalized.

Of course, Trump’s anti-globalism has never been exclusively (or even primarily) economic in nature. And early signs suggest that a coronavirus-stricken America will be a breeding ground for the paranoid xenophobia that is Trumpism’s lifeblood.

5) When socialism comes to America, it may be wrapped in a respirator mask and carrying tissues.
And yet, if a global pandemic threatens to validate Trump’s exclusionary nationalism, it could also alert Americans to our collective interest in socialized medicine and paid sick leave. After all, in the context of an epidemic, the inability of any one U.S. resident to access health care — or take off from work when ill — doesn’t just imperil that individual; it undermines the health and safety of anyone in his or her proximity.

This Miami Herald story on the plight of an exceptionally socially conscious young Miamian’s response to the coronavirus outbreak throws this point into sharp relief:

After returning to Miami last month from a work trip in China, Osmel Martinez Azcue found himself in a frightening position: he was developing flu-like symptoms, just as coronavirus was ravaging the country he had visited.

Under normal circumstances, Azcue said he would have gone to CVS for over-the-counter medicine and fought the flu on his own, but this time was different. As health officials stressed preparedness and vigilance for the respiratory illness, Azcue felt it was his responsibility to his family and his community to get tested for novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19.

… He had the flu, not the deadly virus that has infected tens of thousands of people, mostly in China, and killed at least 2,239 as of Friday’s update by the World Health Organization. But two weeks later, Azcue got unwelcome news in the form of a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270.

A health-care system (and/or political economy) that imposes draconian punishments on people who take socially responsible measures in response to a viral outbreak seems liable to lose legitimacy in the midst of a pandemic — especially if the Democratic nominee happens to be the standard-bearer of a movement for transforming the U.S. health-care system.

This litany is far from comprehensive. Most conspicuously, it gives little consideration to the severe logistical disruptions that a pandemic could introduce to the 2020 campaign. (Will the CDC forbid party conventions? Will canvassing become tantamount to low-grade bioterrorism?) Such contingencies are fascinating to contemplate, but their electoral implications seem too opaque to merit speculation.

But whatever the fates have in store for our respiratory systems or republic, we retain some agency over the crisis’s political implications. We can implore our fellow citizens to see the pandemic as a testament to humanity’s inescapable interdependence (rather than the inevitability of closed borders), the necessity of universal health care (rather than family food buckets), and the hazards of placing power in the hands of nihilists who traffic in conspiracies and alternative facts (rather than placing power in the hands of the administrative state’s scientists and impartial experts). And if our efforts fail to prevent coronavirus from poisoning our old and enfeebled body politic, at least American democracy will have died trying.
"You pick the people who are going to die because you only sent 400 ventilators."-Governor Andrew Cuomo to "President" Donald Trump.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

Ocasio Cortez 2028!

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE IF TRUMP REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE.

Post Reply