Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And I think a larger pool of candidates benefits Sanders the same way a large 2016 Republican field benefitted Trump (with the caveat being that Democrats' proportional allocation of delegates may mitigate the "Trump effect" in large primary fields).

Another thing I think people should remember is that Democrats polled say they really value "electability" and are laser focused on beating Trump.  This is similar to where things were in 2004, and as a result, the Democratic field coalesced very fast around a "winner".  I think something similar could easily happen this time around.  While it's possible that a lot of candidates would still have the money to remain in the race post-Super Tuesday, I think that second tier candidates are going to see their support absolutely collapse if they are struggling to win states.  So I think that the winnowing down to 2 or 3 candidates is going to happen very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reverse will happen to Sanders. The large pool of candidates will hurt him, not help him, especially when you consider that there are a lot of like-minded individuals who actually want to help the party. Sanders will not be the nominee outright and he has no chance of coming out of a brokered convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Another thing I think people should remember is that Democrats polled say they really value "electability" and are laser focused on beating Trump.  This is similar to where things were in 2004, and as a result, the Democratic field coalesced very fast around a "winner".  I think something similar could easily happen this time around.  While it's possible that a lot of candidates would still have the money to remain in the race post-Super Tuesday, I think that second tier candidates are going to see their support absolutely collapse if they are struggling to win states.  So I think that the winnowing down to 2 or 3 candidates is going to happen very fast.

Super Tuesday is such a diverse group of states next year though that I could see there being more winners then usual. I absolutely agree there will be winnowing, but I could see there still being 4 or 5 candidates standing come mid-March next year. Especially since California is part of Super Tuesday now and will award a whole bunch of candidates a number of delegates that will overwhelm whatever is won from NH and IA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I agree with @IheartIheartTesla that Sanders could very well benefit from fragmentation with such a large Democratic primary field, especially if there end up being a large number of well-funded, viable candidates come Iowa caucus time.

I don't think this is a valid assumption.  People are overrating his performance in 2016.  He got so much support because, yeah, a lot of people didn't like Hillary.  But what was his coalition?  Young voters and white educated liberals, mostly.  Talk about the most fickle primary constituency ever.  Both those groups have tons of other options this time.  Sanders has been polling ~15-17 percent.  It might jump to 20 with the announcement, but I doubt it ever gets higher than 25 which...

25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And in a large field, I could easily imagine a scenario where Sanders gains a lot of momentum with wins in Iowa, NH and Nevada [...]

...Makes this all sound very premature.  I mean, in general, it's really overthinking things at this point.  But Sanders winning Iowa, NH, and Nevada?  Heh.  Believe that when I see it.  As I intimated earlier, Bernie isn't going to have much of a fundraising advantage against his top competitors.  They're all gonna raise enough money to be fine.  Pundits and others overrate fundraising to a certain extent.  Is it necessary?  Absolutely.  But once you get to a certain point - which Harris, Beto, Booker and Biden if he runs will almost certainly reach - then there's clear diminishing returns.  Fairly rapidly, in fact.

25 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What I would really like to see this time around is, after everyone declares and before debates start, the candidates all put out some kind of statement saying that despite whoever wins, the others pledge to offer their full assistance to the winner to defeat Trump in the general.

This type of loyalty pledge is commonly asked during debates.  And is usually easily unanimous.  Except in Trump's case, of course.  I don't see why anyone should do it before the debates, but whatever.

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

NH seems to make a point of not choosing whoever they "ought" to choose, and almost always not backing whoever won Iowa.

Aye, was gonna mention that but didn't want to belabor the point.  They're like the hipsters of primaries.

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is similar to where things were in 2004, and as a result, the Democratic field coalesced very fast around a "winner".  I think something similar could easily happen this time around.  While it's possible that a lot of candidates would still have the money to remain in the race post-Super Tuesday

I think there will be a consensus favorite as a result of Super Tuesday, yes.  I don't care how big the field gets.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The large pool of candidates will hurt him, not help him, especially when you consider that there are a lot of like-minded individuals who actually want to help the party.

Obviously this too.

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Especially since California is part of Super Tuesday now and will award a whole bunch of candidates a number of delegates that will overwhelm whatever is won from NH and IA.

I think this is you getting too inside baseball.  The delegate count matters, but not nearly as much as the narrative.  Will there be 4-5 candidates that have at least some delegate count that could technically be viable after Super Tuesday?  Sure, that's certainly possible, maybe even likely.  But there will be a winnowing that boils down to 1-3 candidates in the eyes of the media.  And you can bet they'll rank em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally to what DMC, if Biden runs, he starts in the lead, boxing Sanders out, and if he doesn’t run, his supporters will go to candidates not named Sanders. Every poll I’ve seen has his support between a quarter and a third, and those people will flock to Harris, Booker, Beto, Brown and Klobuchar. Sanders had his moment, and changed the trajectory of the party (or at least sped that change up), but he is not going to be the nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Another thing I think people should remember is that Democrats polled say they really value "electability" and are laser focused on beating Trump.  This is similar to where things were in 2004, and as a result, the Democratic field coalesced very fast around a "winner".  I think something similar could easily happen this time around.  While it's possible that a lot of candidates would still have the money to remain in the race post-Super Tuesday, I think that second tier candidates are going to see their support absolutely collapse if they are struggling to win states.  So I think that the winnowing down to 2 or 3 candidates is going to happen very fast.

I think the environment is much different now than it was in 2004, and online small donor fundraising has really changed the game. Also, I think that the definition of electability has changed for Democratic voters.

And I agree that 2nd tier candidates will collapse after Super Tuesday, but I think the pool of 1st tier candidates is larger than just 2 or 3, and as long as they can keep their fundraising going past Super Tuesday you can't count them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Iowa poll I saw, Biden was the 1st and 2nd choice for a near majority of voters (32+18), but the 2nd choice 2nd choice(s) were split rather evenly between Sanders, Warren and Beto, followed by Booker and Harris. It would be nice to redo these polls when we have an official list of candidates (and throughout the country) rather than a wish list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

In the Iowa poll I saw, Biden was the 1st and 2nd choice for a near majority of voters (32+18), but the 2nd choice 2nd choice(s) were split rather evenly between Sanders, Warren and Beto, followed by Booker and Harris.

In the last Iowa poll I saw, Harris was beating Sanders for second.  If you've seen one more recent please link me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is asking the important question:  for the candidates who have not yet been assigned, who will spoof them on SNL?

 

More seriously, all of this is waaaaaayyyyy premature.  I do think the next few months will give those with the benefit of elected office a lot of huge (but potentially risky) ways to get more name recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think this is you getting too inside baseball.  The delegate count matters, but not nearly as much as the narrative.  Will there be 4-5 candidates that have at least some delegate count that could technically be viable after Super Tuesday?  Sure, that's certainly possible, maybe even likely.  But there will be a winnowing that boils down to 1-3 candidates in the eyes of the media.  And you can bet they'll rank em.

Perhaps, we'll see soon enough (well, actually, not nearly soon enough, I'm 100% on board with Biden when he says the primary season is too long and there's no need for candidates to declare this early). It depends on how attached donors become to their chosen candidates and whether they stick around longer then expected. If a candidate who didn't win anything but has a big money-bomb donation drive after Super Tuesday citing success in delegates won, that'll blow up any media narrative about how their campaign is finished. And I think a few of the candidates, especially Sanders, could pull that off.

Also, because Super Tuesday has states that play well to specific candidates that may otherwise be tier 2 if things go badly for them, I'm specifically of MA for Warren, AL for Booker (he made a lot of friends down there campaigning for Doug Jones), CA for Harris, and VT for Sanders, the four of them could point to wins there as reason to hang around even if it's a different group of 3 or 4 candidates that has won everything else. I think Harris and Sanders are tier 1 already (though obviously a lot can change over a year) so that helps narrow things down, but Warren and Booker may not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

No one is asking the important question:  for the candidates who have not yet been assigned, who will spoof them on SNL?

Former cast member Maya Rudolph returns as Harris.

Media Lurker who steals all of our ideas from the NFL thread, get on it!  

(Leave the reanimated corpse of Bradley Beal to us though. That is strictly ours!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was quick given Barr was just confirmed 5 days ago and Mueller still has a Grand Jury open plus a grand jury fight with a foreign corporation that is currently sitting within the SCOTUS. This is why trust is so important. Looks dodgy but maybe it's been the plan all along and anything else ongoing will be passed off to US Attorneys offices.

 

 

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DMC said:

In the last Iowa poll I saw, Harris was beating Sanders for second.  If you've seen one more recent please link me.

Your's is more recent, the one I was quoting was from mid-December of last year: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics/cnn-poll-iowa-2020-caucus/index.html.

Looking through I few more polls (including one from Feb 7 out of Iowa by Firehouse Strategies that has Harris in 2nd as well), it does look as if she may have made significant inroads in that state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I do think the next few months will give those with the benefit of elected office a lot of huge (but potentially risky) ways to get more name recognition.

Meh, there's not going to be anything too interesting to come up legislatively that will make a difference with MCs that are running.  Even if something salient does come up, which I doubt other than the obvious emergency vote, they'll all almost certainly vote the same way.

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm 100% on board with Biden when he says the primary season is too long and there's no need for candidates to declare this early

This is true in principle, but in practice?  No, it's better to start, or at least decide and wait to 'start,' earlier.  Otherwise you're just unnecessarily narrowing the field of campaign talent and fundraisers.

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

If a candidate who didn't win anything but has a big money-bomb donation drive after Super Tuesday citing success in delegates won, that'll blow up any media narrative about how their campaign is finished. And I think a few of the candidates, especially Sanders, could pull that off.

A candidate that hasn't won any of the four contests before Super Tuesday is not going to win the nomination.

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, because Super Tuesday has states that play well to specific candidates that may otherwise be tier 2 if things go badly for them, I'm specifically of MA for Warren, AL for Booker (he made a lot of friends down there campaigning for Doug Jones), CA for Harris, and VT for Sanders, the four of them could point to wins there as reason to hang around even if it's a different group of 3 or 4 candidates that has won everything else.

If those four candidates are still around by Super Tuesday to win those states, then there's only two others that possibly will be in it - Beto and Biden.  In which case, yes, the delegate count immediately after Super Tuesday would be the primary way the media would decide which 1-3 are in and which 4-6 "are" but, ya know, aren't worth mentioning much.  I'm saying three to be generous.  It'll probably be only two that the media focuses on.  Anyway, I don't even agree with this hypothetical.  I don't think there will be more than 4 candidates - tops - left that are actually viable by the time Super Tuesday comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

A candidate that hasn't won any of the four contests before Super Tuesday is not going to win the nomination. 

 

If those four candidates are still around by Super Tuesday to win those states, then there's only two others that possibly will be in it - Beto and Biden.  In which case, yes, the delegate count immediately after Super Tuesday would be the primary way the media would decide which 1-3 are in and which 4-6 "are" but, ya know, aren't worth mentioning much.  I'm saying three to be generous.  It'll probably be only two that the media focuses on.  Anyway, I don't even agree with this hypothetical.  I don't think there will be more than 4 candidates - tops - left that are actually viable by the time Super Tuesday comes around.

I'm with you on this one.  If a candidate doesn't win one of the first four, I think they're finished.  I mean, those four states are pretty different, and if you can't win any of them, how could you possibly be the winner?  You would be gauaranteed to lose at least 20% of your support in other states just because you look like a "loser", and losing that kind of support is fatal.

Hell, I can easily imagine a scenario where a candidate like Warren wins NH and then MA on Super Tuesday and still is more or less dead in the water.  Or Booker winning SC and AL but nothing else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only prediction I'd dare to make with any percentage of certainty is that the Dems will screw up their 2019 presidential election opportunity early and soon, and do it through refusal to admit they are the party of non-whites, younger people, diversity, etc.  They really really really want to believe they are the party that represents old white rich people.

In the meantime the orange nazi gives away the nation and national security to Russia and Saudi and ... North Korea! and is determined to put people who tell the truth about him in jail, by law.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Isn't Super Tuesday like a calendar year away?

MORE THAN!

But fuck what else are we gonna talk about?  Trump?  Are you that mean?

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

MORE THAN!

But fuck you what else are we gonna talk about?  Trump?  Are you that mean?

Fuck me? Fuck ME!?! I mean I wouldn't. But some people don't have standards. Can't be helped.

Pretend the Meuller report is going to matter. It's supposedly coming out soon or something according to the Fake News CNN alert I didn't read. You delusional bobble heads should get a solid 30 pages of frothing at the mouth out of that.

And the Saudi nuclear armament stuff was waaaaaay to brief. I think y'all should revisit that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×