Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

Recommended Posts

First this this morning. In a spirit like @Triskele asking for feedback I'd like feedback on this essay, which basically uses recent evidence as an indication that Sanders would be a monumental flop if he got the nom.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html?__twitter_impression=true

I'm having troubles finding reasonable counterarguments to this. In particular, the 2018 election which showed moderate dems winning across the board and leftist dems losing every single time in the same nonsafe seats makes me think all Sanders will do is at best win the popular vote but lose in an electoral landslide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a quick look at the article, but it seems to be using 2018 House races where progressives took a beating to extrapolate to 2020 EC dynamics.  None of the progressives won in red seats, but the metric (IMO) isnt really whether they won or lost, but how they did compared to moderate democrats in the past. The reason for this is that the EC votes would be aggregated over a state and therefore the margins of victory are more important than the victories themselves for house races (a subset of EC, or even Senate race demographics).

I mean, Stacey Abrams was a progressive candidate who made Georgia competitive. Still, this isn't proof that Sanders wouldn't lose in a landslide, but I haven't seen actual data to corroborate this.

 

Edit: changed states to seats

Edited by IheartIheartTesla

Share this post


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

I took a quick look at the article, but it seems to be using 2018 House races where progressives took a beating to extrapolate to 2020 EC dynamics.  None of the progressives won in red seats, but the metric (IMO) isnt really whether they won or lost, but how they did compared to moderate democrats in the past. The reason for this is that the EC votes would be aggregated over a state and therefore the margins of victory are more important than the victories themselves for house races (a subset of EC, or even Senate race demographics).

I mean, Stacey Abrams was a progressive candidate who made Georgia competitive. Still, this isn't proof that Sanders wouldn't lose in a landslide, but I haven't seen actual data to corroborate this.

 

Edit: changed states to seats

The argument against this is that these are districts where trump won. Meaning aggregate isn't as important, and these are actual wins. 

The counterargument to that is that Sanders would increase turnout in more blue areas. I dont think theres a lot of evidence for that one way or another, but from anecdotal stories it doesnt sound good given the multiracial makeup prevalent in most heavily blue districts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggregate isn't important for House races, but it is for Senate races and EC votes....so I guess I dont understand. If a progressive outperforms a moderate in an R+20 district but ultimately loses, its still good for the eventual EC vote tally in a state like Georgia, no?

At any rate, Biden is still the favorite to win the nomination. I'd be more concerned about his electability chances (if he is Hillary 2.0, he needs to find ways to increase voter turnout in Philly, and the Detroit/Flint corridor etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Bloomberg, I wish all the Democratic candidates were this straightforward (at least for DC; Puerto Rico I honestly don't know how a referendum there would go, but they should get the choice again).

In addition to the representation, having four additional Democratic senators would be very welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The argument against this is that these are districts where trump won. Meaning aggregate isn't as important, and these are actual wins. 

The counterargument to that is that Sanders would increase turnout in more blue areas. I dont think theres a lot of evidence for that one way or another, but from anecdotal stories it doesnt sound good given the multiracial makeup prevalent in most heavily blue districts. 

 

The other counterargument is that a segment of Sanders supporters, or the kind of people he can drag out that other candidates can't, aren't the kind to vote in midterms.  Also, I think you can make the argument that Jonathan Chait has made a career out of this kind of shit and he's often wrong.  I mean he says that Sanders has more downside than any candidate since Goldwater.  I'd humbly submit Hillary Clinton as a candidate with more downside.  

 

Share this post


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

At any rate, Biden is still the favorite to win the nomination. I'd be more concerned about his electability chances (if he is Hillary 2.0, he needs to find ways to increase voter turnout in Philly, and the Detroit/Flint corridor etc.)

So here's a quick thought exercise.  We talk about the three types of voters that were the difference between 2012 and 2016.  Let's look at how Biden does with each of them, and whether his "electability" claims really hold water.

Minority voters who didn't show up in 2016 - Biden does have the most minority support amongst the Democratic primary.  But you know who else had the most minority support in the Primary?  Hillary Clinton.  Biden's actual record on race is not great, he's really just milking "Obama's VP" for all it's worth. 

Verdict:  I personally doubt Biden will do much better than Clinton with minority turnout, and if he does, it will be a function of black/latino voters being pissed off, which any Dem candidate would benefit from.   

2016 Third Party Voters - These are voters who had a sufficiently low opinion of both candidates that they couldn't support either one.  In general, Biden is less hateable than Clinton, mostly because he doesn't have the Clinton's penchant for shady dealings.  But I've no doubt that the Republican smear machine will do all they can with the Hunter Biden nonstory.  Those who voted third party because HRC was too moderate will not find Biden any better. 

Verdict:  Slight improvement with Biden, nothing big. 

2016 Obama/Trump Voters - These are voters who nod their head at Trump's claim that the Democratic party has become the party of urban elites and minorities.  Biden's schtick is more aimed at them, but on the whole there is very little evidence that this group is unhappy with Trump.  Even amongst Trump voters who had a negative opinion of both Trump and Clinton, Trump's approval rating is quite good.  It's possible there's been further movement between 2016 and 2020 that Biden will help shore up among the most reluctant Clinton voters in 2016 who might move to Trump in 2020. 

Verdict:  Biden probably does better here than Warren or Sanders, but it's probably a pretty small demographic, even compared to the other two categories.

 

In conclusion, I think Biden's "electability" is mostly just hot air.  Everything about him screams "placeholder candidate" because the Democrats haven't found anyone else that they like more and can unite around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jace and soggy [cont. from last thread]

 

Fair enough. 

My perceptions are filtered through experience [obvs] but the majority of the Rogan fanboiis I'm forced to know are full on Trump stans, that also dig miniature frauds like Shapiro and those similar anyway. I'd excise them as I have others, and those for far more personal reasons, but as you say-- life.

Anyway, that the remainder of Rogan's fans are spread out [across the world, not just the US] is the big takeaway. To those whom Rogan can influence politically, that qualify and will actually vote in the election? They likely won't make much of a dent. The perceptual fallout from how Bernie's camp dealt with it all caused actual hurt though, that needs to be addressed-- even if the solution is as simple as Sanders not getting the nod.

If ABT is where it's at, I'd worry most about:

i. election tampering, particularly voting machines [Georgia has it really bad, iirc, Jennifer Cohn is a good follow in that regard]

ii. turning out the vote to counter the former

But that's me, I guess.

 

edited for poor grammar

Edited by JEORDHl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f ABT is where it's at, I'd worry most about

where it's at, no doubt.  dems need to be calvino's palomar in the parisian fromagerie, worrying over the concepts of cheeses, the histories of cheeses, the psychologies of cheeses--but ultimately hurrying to fall back on to the most obvious, most banal, most advertised. 

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

In conclusion, I think Biden's "electability" is mostly just hot air.  Everything about him screams "placeholder candidate" because the Democrats haven't found anyone else that they like more and can unite around. 

There's a fourth type of voter though, the Romney/maybe-Trump-won't be so bad voters who went Democratic in 2018. There's a lot of them, and they're why Democrats took back the House. And they are the group where I think Biden has a legitimate advantage over his main rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fez said:

There's a fourth type of voter though, the Romney/maybe-Trump-won't be so bad voters who went Democratic in 2018. There's a lot of them, and they're why Democrats took back the House. And they are the group where I think Biden has a legitimate advantage over his main rivals.

On the bolded, what makes you say that?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think they're as big a group as any of the three groups I mentioned, and I definitely don't think they're primarily responsible for the midterm gains.  If I were to point to any groups as the reason why Democrats won in 2018, it would be a combination of better minority turnout and Democratic enthusiasm/anger leading to less dropoff of presidential voters than normal.  The Democrats improved prettymuch across the board, from the very diverse NoVa suburbs to economically pinched rural areas like IA, whereas the group you mentioned seems to only exist in certain wealthier parts of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any indication that some 2016 trump voters came to regret it and accordingly woke from their dogmatic slumber in 2018?

Share this post


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

On the bolded, what makes you say that?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think they're as big a group as any of the three groups I mentioned, and I definitely don't think they're primarily responsible for the midterm gains.  If I were to point to any groups as the reason why Democrats won in 2018, it would be a combination of better minority turnout and Democratic enthusiasm/anger leading to less dropoff of presidential voters than normal.  The Democrats improved prettymuch across the board, from the very diverse NoVa suburbs to economically pinched rural areas like IA, whereas the group you mentioned seems to only exist in certain wealthier parts of the country.

Places like Orange County in CA, the Richmond suburbs in VA, Oklahoma City, the NYC upstate exurbs, etc. These don't have a history of voting Democratic, so I don't think they can be chalked up to Obama-Trump voters that came back. There wasn't evidence of improved minority turnout from 2016-2018, so we can't say they were responsible. And while some of them may have already been third party voters in 2016 because of Trump, I don't think most of them are historical third party voters because there simply aren't that many of them.

Yes Democrats did generally better across the board in 2018, but the places they had new wins were primarily in moderate-to-upscale suburbs. Getting suburbs in the south to start voting like suburbs in the north is one of the big voting changes currently ongoing, and its trend that Democrats should be encourages and continuing.

On top of that, moderate-to-upscale suburban residents are some of the most reliable voters out there. If they support you, you don't need to worry about their turnout. They are a key asset that Democrats should be nurturing.

And here's the biggest thing, I think Democrats need to win Arizona this year, full stop. And I think Joe Biden is by the most popular of the leading candidates in the Phoenix suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel deeply disturbed about typing this, but I'm having feelings that ... maybe ... Bloomberg ... is the only guy who can actually beat these horrors. entrenched, in bed with russians and saudis, etc. and corrupt beyond any previous US political dreams.

For one thing, other than his height, there's very little the bedbug can go after when it comes to Bloomberg.  And despite his lack of height, it's unlikely he'd stand there and take whatever the bedbug would try and pull either verbally or physically on a debate stage.  It doesn't seem unlikely either, that if it were Bloomberg, bedbug would refuse to debate at all!

Biden -- it just seems that bedbug would eat him alive.  Less so, maybe Warren or Sanders, but they have so much other stuff he would attack.

OTOH, maybe the media is getting to me, no matter the facts that I may or may not know.  Just like, as listening into the talk shows this morning going on about impeachment, so many callers, even those who call themselves Dems, seem to think that ya, there's fire where Biden and Ukraine -- and Obama -- are concerned.  Others didn't seem to understand that Hunter is Biden's son, not Joe Biden, or that Joe Biden isn't his son, Hunter Biden.  And those who don't identify as Dems, are just outrages at this entire process of smearing a sitting POTUS for their own political gain.  And of course, Warren and Sanders were characterized as communists, and they'd rather burn in hell than ever vote for a red! 

I am not making this up.  I wish I was.  In fact, I've never heard anything get anywhere near as heated as it got on the Brian Lehrer program this AM, in which one of the callers started racist stuff about Warren and Native Americans while spewing fury at the impeachment case -- and had to be shut down.  Even when callers disagree and have other points of view, it's always civil and polite.  Not today.

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sometimes problems find a way of solving themselves...

apparently they have not consumed enough to earn darwin awards, but hypochlorophagy seems as good an explanation as any for why anyone would vote for trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As appealing as I think Bloomberg is to the voters I've been talking about, I worry that he is fatally weak on his left-flank and among minorities in a way that Biden isn't. It might be hard for Trump to attack Bloomberg, but I don't know how necessary attacks would be when certain parts of the Democratic coalition have such a low opinion of him already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This same Brian Lehrer program is back on, doing special reporting, with call ins, on the trial.  I just turned it on.

The first caller I hear is from Staten Island, claims to be a life-long Dem voter but for the first time didn't when he voted for bedbug.  He repeated word for word the defense talking points, starting with Joe and Hunter and Obama's corruption in Ukraine, the Dems paid for the phony Steel Report through Ukraine, and above all he knows THE FACTS and dems are lying lying lying.  Nor can he, neither others of those callers, understand the difference as to who was in power in Ukraine at the time, who it was the Obama admin had Biden investigating, and they are not the same people that bedbug called and threatened and demanded to investigate the Bidens.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lefty left and minorities see Bloomberg as no different to Trump they will most likely vote 3rd party or not at all. But if they see him as a marginal improvement on key social issues then they will probably hold their nose and turn out. I doubt the lefty left will see daylight between him and Trump on economic issues. Minorities might see difference on the economic front.

I don't know or care enough about Bloomberg's policies to know how different he is from Trump, aside from the above mentioned PR and DC stance. I would think that alone might well be enough to push most minorities and lefties to vote for him if he's the D candidate. Is statehood for DC and PR not official Democratic party policy? It should be.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...