US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I really have a hard time seeing Amy get through the primaries. She has a great resume, is smart as hell and would make a fine president. However, she likely lacks the charisma necessary to attract undecided voters, and I think that will stand out with Harris and Booker on the stage.

I think I agree which is a shame. I appreciate her calm, thoughtful comments and mannerisms so much more than Booker's yelling.

[Rippounet]

Heather Heyer's killer should get life:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/james-a-fields-jr-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-charlottesville-car-attack/2018/12/11/8b205a90-fcc8-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html

[lokisnow]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Heather Heyer's killer should get life:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/james-a-fields-jr-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-charlottesville-car-attack/2018/12/11/8b205a90-fcc8-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html

Probably not, likely the judge will write a sentencing recommendation that he be immediately paroled because “jail could ruin his young life”.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Probably not, likely the judge will write a sentencing recommendation that he be immediately paroled because “jail could ruin his young life”.

Hey look, Loki is back to over-the-top pessimism again!  Apparently the euphoria of Democrats midterm election wins only lasted one month. 

[Gertrude]

I'm glad to see Klobuchar getting some love. I've always liked her a lot. Again, depressed at how the sausage is made where charisma is more important than competence because people are distracted by shiny things.

[Fez]

I certainly consider voting for Klobacher in the primary. I think she'd be one of the strongest general election candidates; she has actual crossover appeal from some moderate Republicans without being any sort of blue dog for some reason (just look at how far ahead she won compared to the other statewide Democrats in Minnesota). I don't know if she's popular enough with the base to get through though. 

With California and Texas both being part of Super Tuesday in 2020 though, there's definitely the chance for an early knockout blow for someone. On the other hand, with the new party rule that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote on the first ballot of a contested convention, there's definitely the possibility that things get long and messy as well.

[IheartIheartTesla]

This conversation is always a bit amusing to me, us (political) elites discussing the relative merits of candidates. The way primaries are set up, and I have no idea about the new format, is that name recognition plays a big role particularly when you get to Southern states, and the larger fraction of African Americans in the primary population. As good as Klobuchar may be, I suspect her name recognition in the Carolinas or even Florida is low. My fear is a lukewarm candidate like Biden gets an overwhelming lead until we reach the point of no return, and then we hold our noses and vote for him/her.

Edit: I had her name right before the edit, but I blame Fez for changing it since I wasnt sure

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

With California and Texas both being part of Super Tuesday in 2020 though, there's definitely the chance for an early knockout blow for someone. On the other hand, with the new party rule that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote on the first ballot of a contested convention, there's definitely the possibility that things get long and messy as well.

The way the primary is set up with lots of big states having plenty of early voting, it is quite possible that second and third tier candidates will bank a large share of the votes even if most candidates drop out fairly quickly.  It feels like there's a VERY strong chance that no candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates.  Hopefully the "winner" will be relatively obvious in terms of votes recieved and states/delegates won.  If so, the convention won't have too much drama even if it is technically "brokered".  But it could also get really messy. 

The current calendar (definitely subject to change) is for CA, TX, VA, NC, MA, AL, OK, TN, VT on March 3rd.  That's 162 Electoral votes, or a little under 1/3rd of the country.  It's quite possible one candidate, let's call him "Joe", with good name recognition does pretty well that day against whatever 4-6 candidates are still left in the field after IA/NH/SC/NV, then he could get quite a lead.  But then if there's another candidate that, once the field actually thins out, does clearly better in the later debates and contests, then you could easily get in a position where candidate B, let's call her "Kamala", has fewer pledged delegates than Joe, but most of her supporters argue she actually won the 1v1 contest.  But if it shakes out like:

Joe - 40% of pledged delegates

Kamala - 37% of pledged delegates

everybody else - 23% of pledged delegates

Then what happens?  Do Superdelegates go with the "choice of the people?"  Are they even sure what that is?  Sounds like a recipe for a circular firing squad to me, and frankly, this isn't particularly far-fetched. 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The way the primary is set up with lots of big states having plenty of early voting, it is quite possible that second and third tier candidates will bank a large share of the votes even if most candidates drop out fairly quickly.  It feels like there's a VERY strong chance that no candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates.  Hopefully the "winner" will be relatively obvious in terms of votes recieved and states/delegates won.  If so, the convention won't have too much drama even if it is technically "brokered".  But it could also get really messy. 

The current calendar (definitely subject to change) is for CA, TX, VA, NC, MA, AL, OK, TN, VT on March 3rd.  That's 162 Electoral votes, or a little under 1/3rd of the country.  It's quite possible one candidate, let's call him "Joe", with good name recognition does pretty well that day against whatever 4-6 candidates are still left in the field after IA/NH/SC/NV, then he could get quite a lead.  But then if there's another candidate that, once the field actually thins out, does clearly better in the later debates and contests, then you could easily get in a position where candidate B, let's call her "Kamala", has fewer pledged delegates than Joe, but most of her supporters argue she actually won the 1v1 contest.  But if it shakes out like:

Joe - 40% of pledged delegates

Kamala - 37% of pledged delegates

everybody else - 23% of pledged delegates

Then what happens?  Do Superdelegates go with the "choice of the people?"  Are they even sure what that is?  Sounds like a recipe for a circular firing squad to me, and frankly, this isn't particularly far-fetched. 

Draco Malfoy was a very good student and accomplished Quidditch player.

[Maithanet]

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

Draco Malfoy was a very good student and accomplished Quidditch player.

Dan Snyder is good at a few things that aren't owning a football team or being a good person.  And couldn't this go in the NFL thread? 

[lokisnow]

I agree I think name recognition means the field is already five-six candidates and the road to the nomination runs through the south and Super Tuesday.  If we had another week in the calendar, I’d suspect we will have fifteen+ candidates going into the Iowa caucuses but seven or fewer after South Carolina. Instead Nevada will have to act as a bellweather and may cause some candidates to bail before the Super Tuesday slaughter.

but with South Carolina voting on leap day Saturday, and Super Tuesday three days later, I don’t think South Carolina will winnow the field.

basically the strategy is: make a splash in Iowa or new hamphshire, try for a surge in Nevada you can ride to Super Tuesday, shrug at South Carolina, and go balls out on your own Super Tuesday strategy.

i expect Beto to win Iowa, sanders or Biden to take new hamphshire, Harris to win Nevada and   South Carolina to not matter, but it is probably leaning Beto Harris or booker

harris may well win California, and the above winners have to waste enormous resources to try to not to let her pile up a big lead there, Beto will take Texas and same as above, others are trying to deny him building a big lead in his home state. 

But then the math and geography favors Beto over Harris, unless Biden can stop him, as he will probably sweep Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Carolina and probably lose to Biden in Virginia. Sanders wins Vermont of course and warren maybe wins Massachusetts, but seems like the candidate least likely to win their home state.

in other words, Beto is likely coming out of Super Tuesday owning the entire narrative of the nomination race. Picking up a win five days later in Louisiana will only add to that.

the Midwest version of Super Tuesday is a week later, and this is where Biden and brown could mount a campaign, but if the media is all Beto all the time leading into March 10 it may already be too late for them to notch meaningful victories.

that probably brings it to a Harris vs Beto be Biden March 17 showdown over Florida, arizona and illinois. Since there’s basically a month off after this, it’s the day that probably knocks everyone else out of the race.

its a south and west heavy map, which is bad news for the four northeast front runner candidates (and for brown), given they are running against home state kids from the biggest and earliest states.

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I agree I think name recognition means the field is already five-six candidates and the road to the nomination runs through the south and Super Tuesday.  If we had another week in the calendar, I’d suspect we will have fifteen+ candidates going into the Iowa caucuses but seven or fewer after South Carolina. Instead Nevada will have to act as a bellweather and may cause some candidates to bail before the Super Tuesday slaughter.

but with South Carolina voting on leap day Saturday, and Super Tuesday three days later, I don’t think South Carolina will winnow the field.

basically the strategy is: make a splash in Iowa or new hamphshire, try for a surge in Nevada you can ride to Super Tuesday, shrug at South Carolina, and go balls out on your own Super Tuesday strategy.

i expect Beto to win Iowa, sanders or Biden to take new hamphshire, Harris to win Nevada and   South Carolina to not matter, but it is probably leaning Beto Harris or booker

harris may well win California, and the above winners have to ware enormous resources to try to not to let her pile up a big lead there, Beto will take Texas and same as above, others are trying to deny him building a big lead in his home state. 

But then the math and geography favors Beto over Harris, unless Biden can stop him, as he will probably sweep Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Carolina and probably lose to Biden in Virginia. Sanders wins Vermont of course and warren maybe wins Massachusetts, but seems like the candidate least likely to win their home state.

in other words, Beto is likely coming out of Super Tuesday owning the entire narrative of the nomination race. Picking up a win five days later in Louisiana will only add to that.

the Midwest version of Super Tuesday is a week later, and this is where Biden and brown could mount a campaign, but if the media is all Beto all the time leading into March 10 it may already be too late for them to notch meaningful victories.

that probably brings it to a Harris vs Beto March 17 showdown over Florida, az and illinois. Since there’s basically a month off after this, it’s the day that probably knocks everyone else out of the race.

its a south and west heavy map, which is bad news for the four northeast front runner candidates (and for brown), given they are running against home state kids from the biggest and earliest states.

Hey!  All you all are leaving off the list that brilliant solver of all problems, NY governor Andrew Cuomo, who the whole country knows by first name and admires o so much! 

[Maithanet]

Obviously it is too early to say for sure, but I think you are really overstating Beto's support, particularly with black voters.  I think that Biden and Harris both have a better chance of winning places like TN and NC. 

[lokisnow]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Obviously it is too early to say for sure, but I think you are really overstating Beto's support, particularly with black voters.  I think that Biden and Harris both have a better chance of winning places like TN and NC. 

I think I am under stating Harris support, she could easily win Alabama for instance, and Biden might do well in NC because of its similarity to Virginia. But I think Biden is toast because his strengths are going to be geographically not where the elections are. 

but tennessee is culturally and demographically very like Texas, and Beto will crush it there, likewise he will sweep the states adjacent to Texas. 

So that likely means that while Harris May come out with more delegates because of California, Beto will win more states and the latter means that he will win the most important battle which is winning the media “momentum” narrative. Winning that battle gives him an immense advantage going into the Midwest battles, and will culturally advantage Beto because midwestern voters will break towards him because they loath the idea of California dictating anything to them. Biden only botching one win and a bunch of various lower tier placements wil put him into a media narrative momentum battle he will not be able to overcome nor disprove, in spite of any actual delegate counts. But a strong showing on midwestern Tuesday could maybe keep him in the race

But if Beto takes wins on Midwest Tuesday along with a prior perceived media victory on Super Tuesday (by taking the south), it’s pretty much game over since New England doesn’t start voting for an electoral eternity after March 17: the narrative and momentum will be relentlessly in his favor. 

If beto doesn’t run, the entire race is a free for all with clear advantages for Harris and Biden, but if the favored son of Texas runs, geography and culture means he has an incredibly influential schedule that gives him the clearest path to securing the nomination and defeating the hordes of other candidates.

[DanteGabriel]

Ahahahahaha! Wait until Trump hears about this quote from Pelosi:

Quote

It’s like a manhood thing for him. As if manhood could ever be associated with him. This wall thing.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pelosi-wall-funding-manhood-thing-trump

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The way the primary is set up with lots of big states having plenty of early voting, it is quite possible that second and third tier candidates will bank a large share of the votes even if most candidates drop out fairly quickly.  It feels like there's a VERY strong chance that no candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates.  Hopefully the "winner" will be relatively obvious in terms of votes recieved and states/delegates won.  If so, the convention won't have too much drama even if it is technically "brokered".  But it could also get really messy. 

The current calendar (definitely subject to change) is for CA, TX, VA, NC, MA, AL, OK, TN, VT on March 3rd.  That's 162 Electoral votes, or a little under 1/3rd of the country.  It's quite possible one candidate, let's call him "Joe", with good name recognition does pretty well that day against whatever 4-6 candidates are still left in the field after IA/NH/SC/NV, then he could get quite a lead.  But then if there's another candidate that, once the field actually thins out, does clearly better in the later debates and contests, then you could easily get in a position where candidate B, let's call her "Kamala", has fewer pledged delegates than Joe, but most of her supporters argue she actually won the 1v1 contest.  But if it shakes out like:

Joe - 40% of pledged delegates

Kamala - 37% of pledged delegates

everybody else - 23% of pledged delegates

Then what happens?  Do Superdelegates go with the "choice of the people?"  Are they even sure what that is?  Sounds like a recipe for a circular firing squad to me, and frankly, this isn't particularly far-fetched. 

In a situation like that, I think the hope that folks in the "everybody else" category pledge their delegates to one of the front runners and it never goes to the super delegates. But I agree that even that could get really heated.

On the other hand, there's always predictions of brokered conventions and reality always falls short; and even with the rule changes, I suspect the same will happen in 2020. One interesting thing I read is that a major difference between Democratic and Republican presidential primaries is that long-shot Democratic candidates don't have pocket billionaires keeping them afloat during lean times the way long-shot Republicans do. So after IA and NH, or even before any contests happen, there's a good chance the field will have already narrowed down to the 3 or 4 most viable candidates. Things could still get very messy with that number, but it would mean, if there is further narrowing after Super Tuesday, that the "everybody else" outside the top 2 may only have 5% or 6% of delegates at the convention, not 20+%; which would mean there's a greater chance that there's a pretty clear frontrunner to win on a second ballot.

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Obviously it is too early to say for sure, but I think you are really overstating Beto's support, particularly with black voters.  I think that Biden and Harris both have a better chance of winning places like TN and NC. 

I think that name recognition now isn't the same as name recognition in the future. Same goes with support. Candidates who are building the support networks in Cali and in the South are going to do well. Sanders wasn't doomed in the South because of name recognition - he was doomed because Clinton had been working on the community leaders for years. 

Bill Clinton won in the South for very similar reasons, even though he didn't have the name recognition of others. 

[Zorral]

Is book being made that in the not distant future the orange nazi is going to howl that he never said he'd shut down the government, he, himself and nobody else, because he's not getting what he wants?  And that it was Hillary's emails and Obama's criminality that did it?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I hear that, she is less obviously charismatic than some candidates.  However, I'm keeping an open mind going into the debates.  A lot of people are going to be running in 2020, and she's one of the 5 or so candidates that check many of the boxes for me such that I want to get a better look at how she performs in a national campaign.  If she gets swallowed up in the debates, then so be it, she can continue being a senator.

She's actually a very good debater, it's just that her style is not one to overwhelm viewers with inspiration. I remember back in 08 watching Obama, who was my candidate of choice from the get go, and feeling so excited to watch him perform. I've been to several of Amy's debates I've never felt that type of sensation. 

Amy is actually really similar to Hillary sans the baggage and financial infrastructure, and I think the latter will hurt her in the long run. I think it's much more likely that she's tapped to be someone's VP rather than winning the primary. 

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

I think I agree which is a shame. I appreciate her calm, thoughtful comments and mannerisms so much more than Booker's yelling.

Agreed. And her perhaps her style would contrast well against Trump's, but I fear she would struggle to get attention. Just contrast those two during the Kavanaugh hearings. Booker put on a show while she was calm and poised, She only got attention because Beerface couldn't keep his cool.

Having worked for her I can tell you that until recently she's always been reluctant to do a lot national media hits. It's why I didn't think she'd run in 2016. However, that has changed over the last year or so which to me is the biggest indicator that she's strongly considering a run, but she's going to have to step up her ability to draw attention to herself if she wants to win. 

2 hours ago, Fez said:

I certainly consider voting for Klobacher in the primary. I think she'd be one of the strongest general election candidates; she has actual crossover appeal from some moderate Republicans without being any sort of blue dog for some reason (just look at how far ahead she won compared to the other statewide Democrats in Minnesota). I don't know if she's popular enough with the base to get through though. 

It's because she's the best politician in the state at resolving people's issues combined with the fact that she targets a lot of policies that aren't partisan in nature. For example, a middle age couple once approached me at her booth at the state fair. They were veterans, as is one of their sons, and they were struggling to get his medical bills covered by the VA. They said they tried for a month to get their Republican Congressman to help with no luck. They figured they'd try going through our office since they had heard good things about Amy. I had them in touch with our staffers who handle veterans' issues within an hour and I know they did the best they could to resolve the family's issue. Stuff like that matters a lot to people, especially here in the Midwest. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Draco Malfoy was a very good student and accomplished Quidditch player.

Wait, surely Draco is a Republican.

After all, he told Harry Potter he could help him meet the right people.