US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard

[DMC]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

the Sanders crew would have a damn powerful argument for M4A, given skyrocketing health costs.

Well yeah, that's a main reason why Dems are pushing the case - it's a good way to ensure health care is a salient issue.  I'm not sure on the logic behind why it'd help M4A specifically.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

There’s not enough data to credibly to model all that’s happened in 3 days. It could be anything from minimal change to game changing 

There isn't enough to likely pin down precisely what's going to happen, but there's a whole lot that suggests more than minimal change. The latest national poll had Sanders up on Biden 3 total points. Biden has polled higher in Cal, Texas, and all over the place. All of that suggests he'll do better than what we thought last week, and then you throw in major endorsements from other candidates and major forces in the establishment, and it looks more and more like Biden might gain a lot on Tuesday. 

This, of course, makes a majority candidate almost impossible for the convention. But if Biden + Bloomberg > Warren + Sanders, it's quite reasonable for them to assert Biden is the clear candidate. 

The real problem is that I don't see Sanders doing anything conciliatory no matter what. He won't concede to someone else if he's got the lead (even a small one), and even if he's promised many things. He also won't change his goals to get the concession of someone else - it is his way or no way. It's gonna be a bloodbath.

[lancerman]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There isn't enough to likely pin down precisely what's going to happen, but there's a whole lot that suggests more than minimal change. The latest national poll had Sanders up on Biden 3 total points. Biden has polled higher in Cal, Texas, and all over the place. All of that suggests he'll do better than what we thought last week, and then you throw in major endorsements from other candidates and major forces in the establishment, and it looks more and more like Biden might gain a lot on Tuesday. 

This, of course, makes a majority candidate almost impossible for the convention. But if Biden + Bloomberg > Warren + Sanders, it's quite reasonable for them to assert Biden is the clear candidate. 

The real problem is that I don't see Sanders doing anything conciliatory no matter what. He won't concede to someone else if he's got the lead (even a small one), and even if he's promised many things. He also won't change his goals to get the concession of someone else - it is his way or no way. It's gonna be a bloodbath.

If Biden + Bloomberg > Warren + Sanders BUT Sanders has the lead, then Trump wins. And no it's not a compelling argument that the person with the plurality should lose the nom. It will destroy the Democratic party.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

If Biden + Bloomberg > Warren + Sanders BUT Sanders has the lead, then Trump wins. And no it's not a compelling argument that the person with the plurality should lose the nom. It will destroy the Democratic party.

Doesn't have to be a compelling argument for you. It's almost certainly a compelling argument for the superdelegates and democratic establishment. I agree that in that scenario - and realistically in basically every scenario - the only way forward is Sanders. Even if Sanders didn't have a plurality, I don't see Sanders supporters backing Biden in great numbers, but I do see the converse happening. 

Basically I am saying that we are totally fucked.

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Doesn't have to be a compelling argument for you. It's almost certainly a compelling argument for the superdelegates and democratic establishment. I agree that in that scenario - and realistically in basically every scenario - the only way forward is Sanders. Even if Sanders didn't have a plurality, I don't see Sanders supporters backing Biden in great numbers, but I do see the converse happening. 

Basically I am saying that we are totally fucked.

It has to be a compelling argument for the voters or else it's an auto Trump win. And make no mistake a very small percentage of Sanders supporters didn't back Hillary Clinton in 2016. Less defected from her than Hillary supporters that defected from Obama. They need Sanders supporters to vote for them or they lose. If they really do that, they will hand the election to Trump. 

If Biden or anybody else wants the nom, come in with more votes and delegates than Sanders. If you can't, if you walk out with the nom you will be the second person to lose to Trump

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

It has to be a compelling argument for the voters or else it's an auto Trump win. And make no mistake a very small percentage of Sanders supporters didn't back Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The percentage is 26%. That isn't small. 

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Less defected from her than Hillary supporters that defected from Obama.

No, fewer defected to TRUMP than Clinton supporters who voted for McCain. But more defected away from Clinton completely. 

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

They need Sanders supporters to vote for them or they lose. If they really do that, they will hand the election to Trump. 

I agree, which is why I think we're fucked, because if Biden does well but doesn't get the majority there is no way that Sanders is getting the nod if they're close.

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

If Biden or anybody else wants the nom, come in with more votes and delegates than Sanders. If you can't, if you walk out with the nom you will be the second person to lose to Trump

That's very likely to happen anyway, but it will also almost certainly spell the dissolution of the Democratic party as a political force. 

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This, of course, makes a majority candidate almost impossible for the convention. But if Biden + Bloomberg > Warren + Sanders, it's quite reasonable for them to assert Biden is the clear candidate. 

If Sanders still has a clear delegate lead on Biden, say anything over ~3-4%?  Then no, this rationale is absolute bullshit.  And I'll be happy to say so loudly and often even though I prefer Biden over Sanders.  Sanders should and overwhelmingly likely will be the nominee in such a case.

[karaddin]

12 hours ago, Jeor said:

I don't think the coronavirus is as clearly a negative for the Trump administration as some people think it is. 

I think it comes down to whether it's seen as a national security/foreign threat issue or a health care issue. If the former I can easily see it working out in Trump's favour with a rally around the flag effect.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If Sanders still has a clear delegate lead on Biden, say anything over ~3-4%?  Then no, this rationale is absolute bullshit.  And I'll be happy to say so loudly and often even though I prefer Biden over Sanders.  Sanders should and overwhelmingly likely will be the nominee in such a case.

At this point, I truly wonder what the odds of that are. There's been a seismic amount of news since Saturday night.

Also, what if the delegate leader and popular vote leader are different? The rules say delegates are all that matters, but if Sanders has either one, his supporters will say that's the one that matters. And what if the gap between one is large and the other is small? There's a million different ways this goes badly.

However, I think that, if Biden has the delegate lead (which seemed unthinkable a couple days ago) and ends up as the nominee, in the end I don't think that he'll do any worse among Sanders' supporters than Clinton had done. Hopefully he does much better. But worst case, I think he does about the same; however, I do think he does better among the 2018 swing voters than Clinton did. Hence I think he beats Trump under current circumstances; or at least has the best odds. Basically, so long as no actual dirty dealing happens at the convention, I think a Biden nominee will not be fatally wounded by in-fighting. If anything did happen though to undercut a large plurality winner Sanders, that would be a real issue.

The same goes for Sanders. Although I do think he'll bleed swing voters that Biden would win. And I think Sanders should be concerned as well that if he's the nominee and there's any hint of underhandedness at the convention that got him there, that Biden supporters may stay away. Something like his supporters on the rules committees change any of the rules about voting in the second round of a contested convention.

Basically, both sides need to watch themselves.

[Zorral]

Voter repression!  Voter repression!  Voter repression!

Do all of you think VOTER REPRESSION will have no effect on anything, either tomorrow or in the future, considering particularly that these states are composed of significant numbers of diverse groups?

If you all think this matters nada, I would appreciate so much learning why it doesn't have any effect no or in the future.

[Freshwater Spartan]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

If Sanders still has a clear delegate lead on Biden, say anything over ~3-4%?  Then no, this rationale is absolute bullshit.  And I'll be happy to say so loudly and often even though I prefer Biden over Sanders.  Sanders should and overwhelmingly likely will be the nominee in such a case.

I think the percentage of the leader is important. If the leading candidate is up 44%-40, you give it to the leader because many general elections have somewhat similar percentages. 

But if the leading candidate is up 30%-26%. Its clear there is no real consensus. You have to go to convention. I am not convinced this is inherently a bad thing provided people can maintain a little composure and dignity. Hard for dems to pull off I know but all also know what the stakes. I find it unlikely that Chicago 68 scenes will be repeated. There is no Vietnam like issue going on besides Trump himself.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, what if the delegate leader and popular vote leader are different?

Well, if he has a 3-4% delegate lead then it's pretty safe to assume he has the popular vote lead as well.  Unless he's, like, a svengali at stealing delegates.

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't think that he'll do any worse among Sanders' supporters than Clinton had done.

Nah, me neither.  In fact I strongly suspect he'll do substantially better.  And yeah, he should do better than Clinton with those 2018 suburban women not for any other reason than that they're now much more pissed at Trump than they were 4 years ago.  He's inheriting an environmental effect there.

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If the former I can easily see it working out in Trump's favour with a rally around the flag effect.

I'm not sure how any pandemic becomes a rally round the flag effect.  If it gets that serious, that's just an overall game changer in every way.  Like, seriously, what are we rallying around in response to a virus exactly?  Fuck you China?  That may work with a significant portion of voters, sure, but almost all of those are gonna vote for Trump anyway.

1 minute ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

But if the leading candidate is up 30%-26%.

I think it's very unlikely to be this low of a percentage in terms of the split.  There's only 4 viable candidates left at this point, and Warren is likely to get out after tomorrow unless she pulls off a miracle.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if he has a 3-4% delegate lead then it's pretty safe to assume he has the popular vote lead as well.  Unless he's, like, a svengali at stealing delegates.

Well, it seems deeply unlikely now. But a week or two ago there was a potential in California for Sanders to get 100% of the delegates with only around 25% of the vote. If something like that had happened, but things otherwise broke pretty big for Biden in other states, you could end up with a situation where Sanders had sizable delegate lead but Biden had the popular vote lead; potentially by several points.

ETA: News now that Beto O'Rourke is also endorsing Biden at the rally in Dallas tonight. I don't think Beto has any juice with anyone anymore; but maybe it's still worth a few extra votes in Texas. More a sign of the party, outside the Sander contingent, unifying though.

If Bloomberg does poorly tomorrow, I think there will be an enormous push for him to drop out. Though there's no ability to actually pressure him.

[DMC]

And this is why I said repeatedly these things always work themselves out!  Silver's model truly is for "political hobbyists" in that way.

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

.

The same goes for Sanders. Although I do think he'll bleed swing voters that Biden would win. And I think Sanders should be concerned as well that if he's the nominee and there's any hint of underhandedness at the convention that got him there, that Biden supporters may stay away. Something like his supporters on the rules committees change any of the rules about voting in the second round of a contested convention.

Basically, both sides need to watch themselves.

Is this even possible?  My understanding was that Sanders' contingent is a minority on the committee and that even if they approve a rule change it can be vetoed by Perez?

[lancerman]

28 minutes ago, Fez said:

At this point, I truly wonder what the odds of that are. There's been a seismic amount of news since Saturday night.

Also, what if the delegate leader and popular vote leader are different? The rules say delegates are all that matters, but if Sanders has either one, his supporters will say that's the one that matters. And what if the gap between one is large and the other is small? There's a million different ways this goes badly.

However, I think that, if Biden has the delegate lead (which seemed unthinkable a couple days ago) and ends up as the nominee, in the end I don't think that he'll do any worse among Sanders' supporters than Clinton had done. Hopefully he does much better. But worst case, I think he does about the same; however, I do think he does better among the 2018 swing voters than Clinton did. Hence I think he beats Trump under current circumstances; or at least has the best odds. Basically, so long as no actual dirty dealing happens at the convention, I think a Biden nominee will not be fatally wounded by in-fighting. If anything did happen though to undercut a large plurality winner Sanders, that would be a real issue.

The same goes for Sanders. Although I do think he'll bleed swing voters that Biden would win. And I think Sanders should be concerned as well that if he's the nominee and there's any hint of underhandedness at the convention that got him there, that Biden supporters may stay away. Something like his supporters on the rules committees change any of the rules about voting in the second round of a contested convention.

Basically, both sides need to watch themselves.

If the delegate leader and the popular vote leader are different you actually have a clear case for contested convention. That is very different from a scenario where someone is the clear leader going in but the party is trying to outmath them with super delegates and other candidates pledged delegates. In that scenario it's the purpose of a contested convention. In the other it's basically just the party not liking who got the most support and finding a reason to take it away. 

And no if Sanders has the popular vote and not the delegates, he ran a campaign with the metric being delegates. His supporters would have to move on. 

Honestly Sanders probably has a better shot at beating Trump because his coalition is made up of people who usually don't turn out and are less likely to turn out if he's not the nom. It's the magical youth vote that Democrats always chase. But that's besides the point. 

 

The best case scenario for the Democrats is that somebody gets a clear victory in delegates and popular votes going into the primary and they walk out with the nom. Maybe even saying the other person is VP to consolidate support

[lancerman]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well, it seems deeply unlikely now. But a week or two ago there was a potential in California for Sanders to get 100% of the delegates with only around 25% of the vote. If something like that had happened, but things otherwise broke pretty big for Biden in other states, you could end up with a situation where Sanders had sizable delegate lead but Biden had the popular vote lead; potentially by several points.

ETA: News now that Beto O'Rourke is also endorsing Biden at the rally in Dallas tonight. I don't think Beto has any juice with anyone anymore; but maybe it's still worth a few extra votes in Texas. More a sign of the party, outside the Sander contingent, unifying though.

If Bloomberg does poorly tomorrow, I think there will be an enormous push for him to drop out. Though there's no ability to actually pressure him.

Texas is kind of a must win state for Biden. If Sanders takes California and Texas he is dead

[Freshwater Spartan]

27 minutes ago, lancerman said:

If the delegate leader and the popular vote leader are different you actually have a clear case for contested convention. That is very different from a scenario where someone is the clear leader going in but the party is trying to outmath them with super delegates and other candidates pledged delegates. In that scenario it's the purpose of a contested convention. In the other it's basically just the party not liking who got the most support and finding a reason to take it away. 

And no if Sanders has the popular vote and not the delegates, he ran a campaign with the metric being delegates. His supporters would have to move on. 

Honestly Sanders probably has a better shot at beating Trump because his coalition is made up of people who usually don't turn out and are less likely to turn out if he's not the nom. It's the magical youth vote that Democrats always chase. But that's besides the point. 

 

The best case scenario for the Democrats is that somebody gets a clear victory in delegates and popular votes going into the primary and they walk out with the nom. Maybe even saying the other person is VP to consolidate support

Can you imagine if one nearly 80 year old guy picked another near 80 year old to be VP and they win. The third in succession would be  a 70 something. The fourth in succession is 86.

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Can you imagine if one nearly 80 year old guy picked another near 80 year old to be VP and they win. The third in succession would be  a 70 something. The fourth in succession is 86.

Well they all can't die

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Well they all can't die

Arya says you're wrong