Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[pr0ner]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

[Drazzil]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

See the thread on Marbury v. Madison.

[Drazzil]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

I haven't agreed with the SC since Bush v. Gore. I don't see what good they do. I'd be thrilled as punch to see a working government again. So yes. I think it would be a good time to either pack the courts or revisit Marbury v. Madison.

[Drazzil]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

What good has the Supreme court done in the last 20 years? Congress in the last 10?

[Freyland]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

What good has the Supreme court done in the last 20 years? Congress in the last 10?

That's easy. Kept the President from being a king.

[Smoove_B]

What good has the Supreme court done in the last 20 years?

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 (5-4 decision)

[Drazzil]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

What good has the Supreme court done in the last 20 years? Congress in the last 10?

That's easy. Kept the President from being a king.

You're right. I just see how bad things have gotten and I think what we need is a clean slate.

New courts, new congress. Sweep out the dead wood. But down that road lies... Something worse I think.

[Defiant]

What good has the Supreme court done in the last 20 years?

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 (5-4 decision)

US v. Windsor 2013
Massachusetts v. EPA 2007
Georgia v. Randolph 2006
Lawrence v. Texas 2003

[Drazzil]

Yeah you guys are right. Feel free to discuss this in the new thread I started though.

[noxiousdog]

If this woman's right, it doesn't matter who the D nominee is; "her model tells her the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate."

What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

The story is worth reading.

That is a good article, and I'm a believer.

She counts as an intellectual mentor Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University who popularized the concept of “negative partisanship,” the idea that voters are more motivated to defeat the other side than by any particular policy goals.

That describes me, at this point, perfectly. It also describes many Republicans that I know as well.

[pr0ner]

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.

So it would be okay for Bernie to have dictatorial tendencies simply because he's someone whose policies you agree with?

See the thread on Marbury v. Madison.

Three posts to basically say yes. Got it.

[LordMortis]

She counts as an intellectual mentor Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University who popularized the concept of “negative partisanship,” the idea that voters are more motivated to defeat the other side than by any particular policy goals.

That describes me, at this point, perfectly. It also describes many Republicans that I know as well.

This is who I have morphed in to over the course of about a decade. It took until 2016 to fully become that person. I'm still not a democrat and doubt I ever will be but I have become actively negative partisan, so I am a de facto democrat.

[Lagom Lite]

So going into New Hampshire, it seems to me that it's {Warren/Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Bloomberg} vs Bernie at this point. Who can coalesce the moderate/center vote and compete with Bernie, basically. Some of my reflections:

Buttigieg:
+ Strong showing in Iowa and probably New Hampshire
+ Competent campaign
+ Young, some say charismatic, and gay (plus points for identity)
- Difficult sell to minority and young voters
- Being young and gay might alienate some older voters
- Weak on policy
- Poor experience (young, only a former mayor)

Warren:
+ Strong on policy
+ Woman (identity)
+ Will bring in progressive voters in the general
- Seen as "elitist"
- Poor performance in Iowa and probably New Hampshire
- Poor political savvy (e.g. accusing Bernie of being sexist, which hurt her, the whole Native American thing)

Biden:
+ Obama legacy, name recognition
+ Experienced
+ Folksy
- Political record (voting for the Iraq war, working with segregationists)
- Poor campaigner
- Too much malarkey (sniffing hair, telling voters to vote for someone else, inappropriate touching)
- Slightly senile

Klobuchar:
+ Woman (identity)
+ Authentic, salt of the earth type
- Not charismatic, quite anonymous

Bloomberg:
+ Unlimited money
+ Smart
- Skips the early states
- Billionaire oligarch

My guess? Warren and Biden will be the first to drop out. Warren will endorse Bernie. Biden will endorse Bernie's main competitor, whether it be Klobuchar, Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

If Buttigieg does poorly in Nevada, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states (which I think he will), he's done. At this point it's between Bernie, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. In the end, I don't think Klobuchar will be able to battle it out, leaving Bloomberg, who will be roundly beaten by Sanders.

The other strategy the establishment ("anyone but Bernie") might go for is a brokered convention and bringing back superdelegates. For this to work, as many non-Bernie candidates as possible need to remain in the race so that the vote gets split around (if it's Bernie vs one other contender it's easier for Bernie to achieve a pledged delegate majority).


TL; DR: It's gonna be Curly vs Moe (or Shemp).

[Jaymann]

The only thing worse than Bernie as the nominee would be screwing him out of the nomination.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I'm not sure that I would count being a woman as a strength for Warren and Klobuchar.

[El Guapo]

The only thing worse than Bernie as the nominee would be screwing him out on the nomination.

If Bernie goes into the convention having something like 47% - 48%ish of the delegates, then he'll 100% get the nomination. What I worry about is a situation where Bernie has like 40% of the delegates, followed by Biden at 35%, and then the rest scattered among 3 - 5 other candidates. In that situation Bernie would go into the convention having a significant delegate lead, but not a sufficiently dominant lead to keep Biden from combining with moderate delegates and superdelegates (which activate after the first round of voting) to become the nominee. HOLY SHIT would Bernie supporters lose their fucking minds.

[Holman]

So going into New Hampshire, it seems to me that it's {Warren/Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Bloomberg} vs Bernie at this point. Who can coalesce the moderate/center vote and compete with Bernie, basically. Some of my reflections:

I don't think that's how it works.

Right now we have Bernie vs Biden as the top-line contest, but Biden has also put significant effort into attacking Buttigieg because they share the same lane. Warren, meanwhile, is adopting the safe stance of not strenuously attacking anyone because she knows the race is in flux and that many supporters will be up for grabs in the future.

The race has just begun. Iowa and NH are headline-grabbers, but they are not at all representative of the Democratic electorate. The primary won't be over soon.

[Kraken]

So going into New Hampshire, it seems to me that it's {Warren/Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Bloomberg} vs Bernie at this point. Who can coalesce the moderate/center vote and compete with Bernie, basically. Some of my reflections:

I don't think that's how it works.

Right now we have Bernie vs Biden as the top-line contest, but Biden has also put significant effort into attacking Buttigieg because they share the same lane. Warren, meanwhile, is adopting the safe stance of not strenuously attacking anyone because she knows the race is in flux and that many supporters will be up for grabs in the future.

The race has just begun. Iowa and NH are headline-grabbers, but they are not at all representative of the Democratic electorate. The primary won't be over soon.

Yeah, I'm not making any further predictions until after Super Tuesday. That should get us down to 2-3 players.

[Defiant]

[Kraken]

The DNC was smart to include Bloomberg in the next debate. If he's going to be the moderates' White Knight, he needs to face the same scrutiny as the rest of them, not hide behind a wall of money.

[stimpy]

The DNC was smart to include Bloomberg in the next debate. If he's going to be the moderates' White Knight, he needs to face the same scrutiny as the rest of them, not hide behind a wall of money.

Huh.....I thought all the debates were over.
I look forward to seeing how Bloomberg does.

[Kraken]

The DNC was smart to include Bloomberg in the next debate. If he's going to be the moderates' White Knight, he needs to face the same scrutiny as the rest of them, not hide behind a wall of money.

Huh.....I thought all the debates were over.
I look forward to seeing how Bloomberg does.

There's one before NV, another before SC, and (I think) one more before Super Tuesday.

[YellowKing]

Bloomberg may be the best candidate on the planet, but I don't trust people buying the presidency. And yes, I know that all candidates "buy" the presidency in some form or another - none of them are coming crawling out of log cabins. But Bloomberg's entrance into this race is a particularly egregious example.

[Holman]

Bloomberg might be hitting his first campaign crisis:
Bloomberg’s Blunt Defense of Stop-and-Frisk Policy Draws Scrutiny

A recording of Michael R. Bloomberg in 2015 offering an unflinching defense of stop-and-frisk policing was circulating widely on social media Tuesday, signaling that the former New York City mayor is about to face more intensive scrutiny as he rises in the polls as a Democratic presidential candidate.

While Mr. Bloomberg apologized for his administration’s law-enforcement tactics in November just before he entered the race, he had previously spent years insisting that the policy was justified and effective, showing no indication that he had developed serious misgivings about stop and frisk. The policing tactic was used disproportionately against black and Latino people across New York City for years.

There are plenty of choice quotes in the recording.

“Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O.,” Mr. Bloomberg said in the recording. “You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every every city.”

He went on, “We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes. That’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them.”

This is from 2015, but he was still vocally defending stop-and-frisk in interviews as late as last year.

I imagine the other candidates are looking forward to his first debate.

[LordMortis]

I don't really have an opinion Bloomberg. I guess I need to evidence that he's not working for my best interest or would have no part of the actual democrat party to discount him, if only because my view of the democrat party right now is to take in everyone in solidarity against the GOP without changing the core of party to do so. Compromise as necessary but not on your identity, not on your core of what the party defines itself as. And that goes for everyone who votes democrat as well. Deciding if the core the value and goals binding the party is better/worse/irrelevant vs that which binds the GOP.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Biden is pulling up shop in NH and leaving for SC 7+ hours before the polls even close. I imagine they have some numbers indicating it's going to be a rough night for him. Also, it's interesting he's heading directly to SC and not to Nevada.

I found out today that my 99 (almost 100!) year old grandmother, who had been supporting Biden the whole primary, voted early absentee in NC for Warren. Apparently she decided that Biden seemed too old and not fit for the job. Obviously this is just one anecdote, but I can't imagine she's the only person coming to that realization.

[Smoove_B]

Bloomberg might be hitting his first campaign crisis:
Bloomberg’s Blunt Defense of Stop-and-Frisk Policy Draws Scrutiny

Apparently it helps to draw in voters from the other side of the isle?

Stop and frisk works. Instead of criticizing @NY_POLICE Chief Ray Kelly, New Yorkers should be thanking him for keeping NY safe. (2013)

[Jaymann]

Yeah, well fuck Bloomberg and the cop car he rode in on.

[Holman]

Biden's polling has dropped very dramatically since Iowa, and he's clearly not expecting to do well in NH or NV. There's a decent chance he might not even make it to Super Tuesday.

If Joe drops out, how long will the DOJ and the Senate keep up their investigation of international super-criminal Hunter Biden?

[malchior]

Biden's polling has dropped very dramatically since Iowa, and he's clearly not expecting to do well in NH or NV. There's a decent chance he might not even make it to Super Tuesday.

If Joe drops out, how long will the DOJ and the Senate keep up their investigation of international super-criminal Hunter Biden?

If Iowa hadn't been a massive shit show there was talk he might have been finished then and there. He escaped via IDP incompetence but getting to Super Tuesday is becoming tenuous especially if SC tanks for him. His money and support will dry up.

[El Guapo]

Biden's polling has dropped very dramatically since Iowa, and he's clearly not expecting to do well in NH or NV. There's a decent chance he might not even make it to Super Tuesday.

If Joe drops out, how long will the DOJ and the Senate keep up their investigation of international super-criminal Hunter Biden?

I'm not in love with Biden, but this has really reinforced for me how arbitrary and stupid state voting order is in the primary. That a frontrunner should have his campaign derailed because the first few states (which are wildly unrepresentative of the breakdown of the Democratic primary electorate as a whole) are bad fits for that candidate's coalition seems crazy to me.

Not that Biden has proven himself a powerhouse campaigner either, so the blame isn't entirely off him, but I think it's reasonable to say that the primary looks VERY different if the first state is South Carolina, for example.

[Smoove_B]

Just about everything regarding the whole electoral system is a holdover from a society long gone. There's no reason for us to not have voting on a weekend. There's no reason for us to have a 2+ year campaign cycle. It exists still because it makes the 24 hour news lots of advertising money.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

[Defiant]

(it does kind of remind me of the final season of the West Wing, where the Republican candidate was really pro-choice and the Democratic candidate was really pro-life.)

[Alefroth]

Just about everything regarding the whole electoral system is a holdover from a society long gone. There's no reason for us to not have voting on a weekend. There's no reason for us to have a 2+ year campaign cycle. It exists still because it makes the 24 hour news lots of advertising money.

And all that campaign ad money. It's a lucrative time for media.

Edit: Uh, nevermind. I didn't clearly read your post.

[El Guapo]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.

[Kraken]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

His entire value proposition was that elusive quality of "electability." Losing the first several races by large margins pops that bubble. I never believed it in the first place, so I hope he folds sooner than later to open his lane for Butti or the Klob.

It's a shame he chose not to run in 2016, because he'd have outperformed Hillary (and probably Bernie) with the Obama glow still bright and his senescence less evident...but he'd probably be losing his reelection bid right now if he had. What-if scenarios are always fun.

[Jaymann]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.

I take it you meant SC.

[El Guapo]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.

I take it you meant SC.

My post was perfect, any comment to the contrary is fake news, just trying to stir up people against their favorite most beloved poster. I will note that Biden is in fact behind in the Iowa results, which proves that my post was perfect.

Also, I always said South Carolina.

[Holman]

Biden's problem isn't all, or possibly even mostly, due to the locations of the first primaries. Certainly that doesn't help him, but he's also severely lagged behind in fund raising compared to most of the candidates left. His campaign just isn't generating any excitement, in no doubt at least partially due to his lackluster performance during the debates.

Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.

Biden had money problems well before the end of 2019, something very rare in a long-term frontrunner. This at least reflects an enthusiasm gap.

It's possible that Biden was the "choice" (due to name recognition) of many Undecideds who are only starting to pay attention as the voting begins.