US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.

[karaddin]

He might be center for the US, but he's definitely right of center by Australian standards and I think UK as well and this particular discussion was kicked off my my reply to Mormont.

Regardless though, he's the most right candidate in the primary yes? I still maintain that the purpose of a unity candidate right now would be to unite and turn out the base, not futilely go after Rep voters that are never going to actually switch. So it should be someone towards the middle of the candidates, not the general election

[Fez]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

He might be center for the US, but he's definitely right of center by Australian standards and I think UK as well and this particular discussion was kicked off my my reply to Mormont.

Regardless though, he's the most right candidate in the primary yes? I still maintain that the purpose of a unity candidate right now would be to unite and turn out the base, not futilely go after Rep voters that are never going to actually switch. So it should be someone towards the middle of the candidates, not the general election

Lots of Republican voters did switch though. We saw that in 2018 (to some extent we also saw that in Iowa just recently, some of the few places that caucus turnout was up from 2016 were formerly Republican suburbs of Des Moines). They just aren't Republicans anymore. If the Obama-Trump voters are gone, than we need them as a replacement. The base is not enough to win a national election; though obviously the candidate also needs to be someone that does not cause elements of the base to stay home.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Regardless though, he's the most right candidate in the primary yes? I still maintain that the purpose of a unity candidate right now would be to unite and turn out the base, not futilely go after Rep voters that are never going to actually switch. So it should be someone towards the middle of the candidates, not the general election

Yeah, I've been saying this for months.  It's why I think that Bloomberg and Sanders are probably the worst choices Democrats could make if their goal is to bring the party together.  In addition to being 78 year old white men representing the party of young people and minorities. 

[karaddin]

I think Bernie is up there making his case as a reformer - it's completely different role to unity candidate. If he sells the party on it then the choice is made and it will have been made honestly.

I just see the idea of Bloomberg as being a moderate that won't scare people off, despite the likelihood that he'll scare a ton of people off from the other side of the base.

Fez - any that switched last time are already switched and weren't enough to win it. I'm extremely skeptical that people who voted for Trump last time are still in play. I'm also skeptical that the number of alienated former Republicans that might vote D outnumber the potential votes lost by Bloomberg.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Yes, because nothing Bernie Sanders has proposed would help young people or minorities...

Are you arguing the messenger does not matter, so long as the policies are good enough?  That...does not match my experience. 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? The Obama economy was a strong one, Clinton had very little competition in the primary, and her opponent in the general was a clown man.

I mean this.  The lag in economic growth in early 2016 portended a slight victory for the "opposition" party.  Now even most of us political scientists didn't believe in those models because, yeah, c'mon man, Trump?!?  But the models do not take into account candidate characteristics - that's why I refer to it as "the environment."

15 minutes ago, karaddin said:

He might be center for the US, but he's definitely right of center by Australian standards and I think UK as well and this particular discussion was kicked off my my reply to Mormont.

Sure, but I don't study Australian or UK politics so 

15 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Regardless though, he's the most right candidate in the primary yes? I still maintain that the purpose of a unity candidate right now would be to unite and turn out the base, not futilely go after Rep voters that are never going to actually switch. So it should be someone towards the middle of the candidates, not the general election

To answer your question - undoubtedly.  And I agree wholeheartedly on your emphasis on finding a unity candidate.  It's just unfortunately this cycle one none was agreed upon (and it's already looking too late for that to happen).  We can argue all day if that was due to candidate quality or like I mentioned yesterday the Dem electorate being scared to nominate any "diverse" candidate, or myriad other factors.  But that's the reality of the situation right now, and it's looking very likely the last two candidates standing will be my least preferred among pretty much the entire giant field, to my great frustration.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Yes, because nothing Bernie Sanders has proposed would help young people or minorities...

That's not the point - when the most exciting candidate in a wide primary field is a 78, non-photogenic, white man, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the ability of the Democratic big tent to find representative candidates.  And I say this as a proud Sanders supporter. 

 

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I think Bernie is up there making his case as a reformer - it's completely different role to unity candidate. If he sells the party on it then the choice is made and it will have been made honestly.

But should it really be either/or?  Don't you think that candidates should be making an appeal both to unity and to the changes they would make? 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

You can't unify people behind a system that inherently divides them.

Huh?  Bringing together the Democratic Party cannot be done because "the system" divides them? 

[mormont]

7 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I think a lot of young people and minorities bought into the messaging of the last Democratic president and found themselves very disappointed with the policies. Bernie is the only candidate I've seen (on the left) whose captured anywhere near the enthusiasm that Obama did, and I personally think he's more likely to deliver.

Sanders will face the exact same obstacles to delivering on his policies that Obama did: if anything, he'll find them harder to overcome.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I find the idea so obscene that a billionaire could come in at this stage in an election, dump 350$ million into this sweeping ad campaign to essentially buy a Super Tuesday, and slide right into the top 2-3 contenders for the nomination. That being said, I don't think it's going to work. Bernie won New Hampshire and Iowa (sort of), and most polls have him leading in Nevada. Bloomberg, meanwhile, is further splitting his base with Klobuchar, Biden, and Pete.

Bernie has a very good chance to win a strong majority of states and fail to get enough delegates to secure the nomination. If he’s at 45% he’ll get it, but 35%? Maybe not, and given that the moderates are dropping while Bloomberg just got a poll putting him in second nationwide, who knows, maybe his unusual strategy could work.

[Zorral]

Another nail in Biden's coffinated [stet] campaign:

2010 --

Quote

 

The war in Afghanistan shattered Joe Biden’s faith in American military power ....

‘I am not sending my boy back there to risk his life on behalf of women’s rights!’ the vice president shouted

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/18/biden-afghanistan-military-power/?

Most of these candidates have lousy records on the record when it comes to women and racism.  None of them can deliver a 'unity' to the country.  The closest to those left standing after the billionaire's highjack is Warren, and she's female and a 'pretend' Native American, so she's as much a target of unreasoning hatred for that as Bernie and Bloomie are for being Jewish -- and further Bloomie for being really really really short -- Buttigieg for being gay, and Klobuchar for being really nothing at all.  Way to go DNC, way to go.

But the major thing is that both Warren and Sanders have a concerted dignitas to aim at the vast income inequality, which is the only place we can begin to attack all the other vast crises overwhelming not just this country but the world.  And the DNC will hysterically bomb them out of existence rather than have That!

Yet Bernie's the only one who has anything at all like the enthusiastic base that wins elections.  So the solution is not to kill Bernie but to unite like crazy behind him and turn out the vote for him.  But no, everyone seems to think the only solution is to back a right wing, sexist, abusive, bigoted billionaire who bought the nomination.  Just -- spit.

[Fez]

19 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Fez - any that switched last time are already switched and weren't enough to win it. I'm extremely skeptical that people who voted for Trump last time are still in play.

That's simply not true though. All the evidence shows that a lot of people who didn't switch in 2016 (though the Clinton campaign was banking on them doing so), did end up switching in 2018.

It seems a hell of a gamble to think that people who either voted Trump, third-party, or did not vote in 2016, would be willing to vote for a self-described socialist in 2020. No matter how much it turns out they dislike Trump.

[karaddin]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But should it really be either/or?  Don't you think that candidates should be making an appeal both to unity and to the changes they would make? 

I think a reformer needs to try unite the party for sure, but I'm meaning something more specific by unity candidate - it's someone that isn't fully embodying the desires of any of the factions, but is acceptable to all of them. You could try and call that a compromise candidate if you wanted, but I'd say a compromise candidate would be unpalatable to all of them even as they are accepted. 

I think Biden would have been closer to a compromise than a unity candidate if he'd come out in front. 

@DMC yeah the chance to even get one seems to have mostly gotten away. All the candidates that were a chance coming from the center have flamed out and dropped out and Warren isnt getting the traction for a unity coming from the left. I have reservations about Bernie but they're smaller than any of the other candidates that seem like they're still in with a chance.

[karaddin]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's simply not true though. All the evidence shows that a lot of people who didn't switch in 2016 (though the Clinton campaign was banking on them doing so), did end up switching in 2018.

I'm just extremely cynical about right wing voters heading home when it counts. A midterm vote can be an attempt at a protest vote, but when they're in the booth they're going to punch Trump's ticket and I don't believe the polling will reflect it until the very last minute, if even then. They overlook all the flaws and all the objections when it really counts and they'll self justify it with SCOTUS picks.

As to the last bit - I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the candidate has to be Bernie, I'm saying that Bloomberg is the very worst pick. 

[Fragile Bird]

And in the latest in exciting Bloomberg news!

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/bloomberg-enrages-trump-by-buying-greenland?fbclid=IwAR2a2gb7YRE7dkRQtKnfAYLx9pXwVYrzkEwbpec8FydqMC5xfvW5KAZyq1k

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Sanders will face the exact same obstacles to delivering on his policies that Obama did: if anything, he'll find them harder to overcome.

Sanders won’t get 5% of what he’s campaigning on done even if Democrats retake the Senate. And that begs the question, will a Sanders victory actually set his causes back? I think it will.

[Ormond]

42 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah, I've been saying this for months.  It's why I think that Bloomberg and Sanders are probably the worst choices Democrats could make if their goal is to bring the party together.  In addition to being 78 year old white men representing the party of young people and minorities. 

I know what you mean but it is a bit amazing to me as a 68 year old myself that being Jewish is no longer considered being "minority". 

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm just extremely cynical about right wing voters heading home when it counts. A midterm vote can be an attempt at a protest vote, but when they're in the booth they're going to punch Trump's ticket and I don't believe the polling will reflect it until the very last minute, if even then. They overlook all the flaws and all the objections when it really counts and they'll self justify it with SCOTUS picks.

As to the last bit - I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the candidate has to be Bernie, I'm saying that Bloomberg is the very worst pick. 

I don't think a lot of the reluctant Trump voters who switched to the Dems in 2018 fit this stereotype. I think the typical such person was a suburban college-educated woman who identified herself as one of the few remaining "moderate" Republicans and who didn't even approve of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court pick, so they certainly aren't going to "justify" voting for Trump again on the basis of SCOTUS. 

[karaddin]

Just now, Ormond said:

I don't think a lot of the reluctant Trump voters who switched to the Dems in 2018 fit this stereotype. I think the typical such person was a suburban college-educated woman who identified herself as one of the few remaining "moderate" Republicans and who didn't even approve of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court pick, so they certainly aren't going to "justify" voting for Trump again on the basis of SCOTUS. 

I'll freely admit my conviction on this point is based in cynical emotions and disillusionment with results over the last 4 years in the US, UK and Australia. If I'm wrong, then fantastic, but don't nominate that billionaire regardless. Even if he was an acceptable POTUS it's still a terrible precedent that furthers the erosion of the US system of democracy.