Election 2020

[B-Fly]

So... the letter beside the name. Got it.

Which policies are you talking about? I haven't heard anything other than common sense gun reform, and that's the platform for every Democratic candidate.

Seriously? You need me to read his website for you?

Criminal Justice Reform: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...justice-reform

Economic Justice for Black America: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/economic-justice

Reproductive Freedom: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...ductive-rights

Paid Family Leave: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...d-family-leave

College Access and Affordability: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/higher-education

There are plenty more on other issues if you are interested, but your position seems to be that a candidate's platform and policy doesn't matter if you don't like their background or their history. I'm okay with holding candidates accountable for their history, but also recognize that when a candidate runs and wins on a platform they are immediately under intense pressure to deliver on that platform, so platforms and policies matter. And in my opinion they matter a lot more than what a candidate did or didn't do in prior jobs. What are they committing to do as President?

And sure, the other Democrats running for President all have many similar policy positions. That's not a basis for attack, in my opinion. That's a basis for concluding that every one of the Democrats running for the Presidency would be dramatically better than Trump. No question in my mind.

[Teenwolf]

I think this opinion piece from today's New York Times is a pretty good summation of where we are:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/o...c-primary.html

Can you copy-paste the relevant bits for those of us who read our 5 free NYT articles in the first few days of every month?

[Teenwolf]

Seriously? You need me to read his website for you?

Criminal Justice Reform: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...justice-reform

Economic Justice for Black America: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/economic-justice

Reproductive Freedom: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...ductive-rights

Paid Family Leave: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/polici...d-family-leave

College Access and Affordability: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/higher-education

There are plenty more on other issues if you are interested, but your position seems to be that a candidate's platform and policy doesn't matter if you don't like their background or their history. I'm okay with holding candidates accountable for their history, but also recognize that when a candidate runs and wins on a platform they are immediately under intense pressure to deliver on that platform, so platforms and policies matter. And in my opinion they matter a lot more than what a candidate did or didn't do in prior jobs. What are they committing to do as President?

And sure, the other Democrats running for President all have many similar policy positions. That's not a basis for attack, in my opinion. That's a basis for concluding that every one of the Democrats running for the Presidency would be dramatically better than Trump. No question in my mind.

Yeah, and Trump ran on protecting SS, getting out of "stupid endless wars", and expanding health care. Does any of it matter when the one making the promises is a billionaire scumbag? Do you disagree that he's a billionaire scumbag, or do you disagree that billionaire scumbags make ineffective and illegitimate leaders of supposedly Democratic countries?

I just think legitimizing Bloomberg in any way is seriously harmful to Democrats hoping to bring out non-voters.

[Ken]

Yeah, and Trump ran on protecting SS, getting out of "stupid endless wars", and expanding health care. Does any of it matter when the one making the promises is a billionaire scumbag?

I'm confused, you asked for details on the policies and when provided your response is that policies don't matter since politicians don't follow through after the election? Why did you ask then?

[B-Fly]

The best President for Black Americans since Lincoln and Grant was a clear racist and all around "scumbag". But he was committed to policies that advanced civil rights and anti-racism and he had the political skills and capital to get it done.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism

Again, I'm not saying that anyone should overlook a candidate's past statements or character flaws, but policies and the ability to execute on them are absolutely critical. They should not be dismissed as empty or meaningless.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, and Trump ran on protecting SS, getting out of "stupid endless wars", and expanding health care. Does any of it matter when the one making the promises is a billionaire scumbag? Do you disagree that he's a billionaire scumbag, or do you disagree that billionaire scumbags make ineffective and illegitimate leaders of supposedly Democratic countries?

I just think legitimizing Bloomberg in any way is seriously harmful to Democrats hoping to bring out non-voters.

Why do you think a billionaire who is spending so much of his own money would run on a campaign of lies? What does he have to gain at this point? He has been consistent in wanting Trump out and in wanting these policies for America for a good long while. I am not defending his character or his words or actions related to black and Latin populations are his history with women. All of that sounds too similar to the guy we have now for my tastes. But it seems to be a logical leap to suggest that his policies would also be trump-like. They have not been in NYC and his stated goals all sound much better than what Trump has been doing. I don't question the sincerity of his platform, but his character.

ETA: I also do not agree with him sidestepping the debates and relying solely on ad buys, and lots of them, but I am uncomfortable with the notion that a billionaire must be a scumbag by default. Bloomberg might be one, but not because he is a billionaire. The same argument is being used against Bernie for being a millionaire. I think it is a wrong-headed argument to make. Highlighting that he is a billionaire clearly suggest that in and of itself makes him bad. Why is that?

[Teenwolf]

I'm confused, you asked for details on the policies and when provided your response is that policies don't matter since politicians don't follow through after the election? Why did you ask then?

Bloomberg's policies mean nothing coming from him because he's equally untrustworthy as Trump.

Do you think questioning Bloomberg's authenticity is merely a product of my support for Bernie, or reflective of Bloomberg's entire background as an openly racist, sexist, and dick-ish billionaire with zero credibility?

[TS Garp]

Can you copy-paste the relevant bits for those of us who read our 5 free NYT articles in the first few days of every month?

By Adam Jentleson, from the New York Times 2/18/20

The Democratic presidential primary is starting to feel less like a political contest and more like an existential experiment. In the era of big data and after a year of micro-analyzing every little twist and turn, we seem to know less than we did at the beginning. In an era when we’re supposed to know everything, we somehow seem to know nothing.

The frustration is compounded by the feeling that we’re not asking all that much. Most Democratic voters aren’t asking a lot of questions. They’re just desperate to know the answer to a single, simple one: Who has the best chance of beating President Trump?

With more public polls than ever, more data scientists on the payrolls of major news organizations and a preponderance of poll-aggregating and analytical sites, it feels entirely reasonable to expect to know the answer by now.

Yet despite all the data and all the analysis, the universe appears dead set on defying our simple wish for an answer, and gleefully raising more questions instead. To the extent that we can put our finger on any reliable facts, many of them are slippery and two-sided.

Let’s review what we (sort of) know.

A stable race is suddenly not.

For the past year, the race orbited reliably around Joe Biden. He was in a tier by himself. Candidates in the tier below him traded positions and some dropped out, but nothing about the fundamental structure of the race changed. Mr. Biden may still bounce back, but the force he exerted on the race appears to be a thing of the past.

The “electability” candidate is bad at running for president.

Mr. Biden seemed to have a lock on the issue voters cared most about: electability. His hold on this issue was strengthened by the preponderance of polls showing him beating Mr. Trump by the biggest margins of any of the candidates. The problem is that the reality of Mr. Biden on the ground has never matched Mr. Biden’s numbers on paper. His debate performances have been generally received as lukewarm to poor, he consistently failed to fill rooms at his events and his performance on the stump has been criticized as lackluster.

The question has always been whether election results would converge with his performance on the ground or his performance in polls. Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire saw more of Mr. Biden than voters anywhere else, and entrance polls showed voters in both states prioritizing electability over all other issues. And they placed him fourth and fifth, respectively. At least in Mr. Biden’s case, the election results converged with the candidate’s performance in real life, not the polls.

The “least-electable” candidate has the best chance of winning the nomination.

Senator Bernie Sanders currently has the most viable path to winning a plurality of pledged delegates before the Democratic convention. His support is the most stable across the widest array of states, and he can claim solid performance across a diverse range of age, racial and ethnic groups. He beats Mr. Trump in most head-to-head polls.

At the same time, the Democratic establishment collectively screams that he is unelectable. These are, of course, many of the same people who assured us that Mr. Biden was the most electable candidate and that Mr. Trump would surely lose the 2016 election. On the other hand, Mr. Sanders’s own theory of electability is premised on the idea that he will bring new voters into the process and inspire massive turnout. So far, that has not happened. In addition, his supporters keep picking fights with other Democrats who may not support him now, but whose support Mr. Sanders will need to secure the nomination and beat Mr. Trump. So he needs to figure out how he can expand what is a factional base of support.

Can a woman beat Mr. Trump?

Women have driven Democrats’ electoral victories, but many Democratic voters are nevertheless convinced a woman can’t beat Mr. Trump. Story after story documents Democratic voters — men and women alike — expressing the view that a woman can’t win. This may explain the lackluster to poor results so far for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Yet by multiple measures, she is broadly liked by Democratic voters, second only to Mr. Biden in the Economist’s measure of who voters are considering. Her marquee policy position, a two-percent tax on wealth over $50 million, polls at 63 percent, including 55 percent support from independents and 57 percent support from Republicans.

Women have powered the resistance to Mr. Trump: The Women’s March was likely the biggest protest event in American history, and increased support from women drove a “blue wave” in the 2018 midterms. And in many elections, women candidates outperformed men: Among Democrats, “female candidates in 2018 are more likely to defeat male candidates than the other way around,” reports Ella Nilsen of Vox.

Mike Bloomberg’s money can buy a lot, but probably not the nomination.

Big business loves politics because sums that amount to pocket change in major industries buy big influence in Washington. Mr. Bloomberg is investing unheard-of sums in his race — he has more staff members than any other campaign, and his ads are everywhere. That spending has quickly elevated his poll numbers.

But there can be diminishing returns on spending: In 2016, Hillary Clinton outraised Mr. Trump three-to-one — and lost. Mr. Bloomberg’s record is dicey: He spoke at the 2004 Republican convention, praising George W. Bush and his war on terrorism. His “stop and frisk” regime was so brutal and discriminatory, it was struck down by a federal court as violating its victims’ civil rights. His presence supercharges the message from Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren that billionaires are buying our democracy. He could win enough delegates to be a player at a contested convention, but it’s unlikely he can win a majority — and if the Democratic Party gave the nomination to a billionaire who supported Mr. Bush, it might as well shoot a big chunk of the Democratic electorate into space and hand Mr. Trump his re-election.

Black voters are the backbone of the Democratic Party, but …

So far, white voters have discounted their views. Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota are flatlining with black voters, polling at 4 percent and 0 percent, respectively, in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Their records are troubling. Mr. Buttigieg oversaw a sharp decline in the number of black police officers, pushed out both the black police chief and fire chief, and his handling of the shooting of a black man by a police officer prompted anger and outrage among black residents. For her part, a case Ms. Klobuchar cited as an example of her tough-on-crime approach during her tenure as a county prosecutor might have resulted in the wrongful conviction of a black teenager. Sunny Hostin, a former prosecutor and co-host of the “The View,” called the case “one of the most flawed investigations and prosecutions that I think I have ever seen.” But both have been propelled forward because white voters have made up nearly all of the votes cast so far.

There are other mysteries.

Turnout is down, based on Iowa — except that it might also be up, based on New Hampshire. More moderate candidates are more electable, based on a study of congressional candidates — except that the leftier candidate might also be more electable, judging by Barack Obama’s dominant win in 2008 after beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Twitter is not real life, based on the composition of the Democratic electorate — except when it is, foretelling Mr. Biden’s fall and Mr. Sanders’s rise. There are two lanes, progressive and moderate — except when there aren’t, as Ms. Klobuchar’s surge in New Hampshire took voters away from both Ms. Warren and Mr. Biden.

One thing we do know for sure.

The last time Democrats unseated a Republican incumbent was in 1992, when we nominated the guy who had to go on “60 Minutes” during the primary season to deny credible allegations of infidelity and who did not win a single state until Super Tuesday. President Bill Clinton went on to win 370 electoral votes. And the last time we won the popular majority was when we nominated the black man who had admitted to using cocaine, who was caught on tape calling working-class white “bitter” people who “cling to guns and religion,” and who sat in the pews with a pastor who declared, “God damn America.” Mr. Obama went on to win 365 electoral votes, carrying states like Indiana.

No one can tell us who can beat Mr. Trump, because no one knows.

All we really know is that the last two Democratic presidents to win were dynamic performers on the stump who inspired people with optimism and were able to assemble a broad coalition.

As a potential member of that coalition, the single smartest act of political analysis one can perform may be to step back from the data, and ask yourself a simple question: How do the candidates make me feel?

[Teenwolf]

Why do you think a billionaire who is spending so much of his own money would run on a campaign of lies? What does he have to gain at this point? He has been consistent in wanting Trump out and in wanting these policies for America for a good long while. I am not defending his character or his words or actions related to black and Latin populations are his history with women. All of that sounds too similar to the guy we have now for my tastes. But it seems to be a logical leap to suggest that his policies would also be trump-like. They have not been in NYC and his stated goals all sound much better than what Trump has been doing. I don't question the sincerity of his platform, but his character.

ETA: I also do not agree with him sidestepping the debates and relying solely on ad buys, and lots of them, but I am uncomfortable with the notion that a billionaire must be a scumbag by default. Bloomberg might be one, but not because he is a billionaire. The same argument is being used against Bernie for being a millionaire. I think it is a wrong-headed argument to make. Highlighting that he is a billionaire clearly suggest that in and of itself makes him bad. Why is that?

Because when you have accumulated $60 Bn and try to use that money to either buy the Presidency, or to purchase influence towards who is President, you are clearly acting out of self interest! Anybody who thinks Mike Bloomberg is running for President for the betterment of the country, while Trump is only in it for himself is fucking 100% delusional.

[Ken]

Bloomberg's policies mean nothing coming from him because he's equally untrustworthy as Trump.

I understand your position, I'm just confused on why you asked someone to go pull them if you were just going to nullify any answer.

"Which policies are you talking about? I haven't heard anything other than common sense gun reform, and that's the platform for every Democratic candidate."


It's a terrible way to have a productive conversation.

[swampdragon]

By Adam Jentleson, from the New York Times 2/18/20...
All we really know is that the last two Democratic presidents to win were dynamic performers on the stump who inspired people with optimism and were able to assemble a broad coalition.

As a potential member of that coalition, the single smartest act of political analysis one can perform may be to step back from the data, and ask yourself a simple question: How do the candidates make me feel?

this is a great summary statement - not sure what I do with it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

this is a great summary statement - not sure what I do with it.

He kind of lost me when he asserted that Biden was the tier one frontrunner

[Sour Masher]

He kind of lost me when he asserted that Biden was the tier one frontrunner

I only skimmed it, but wasn't he talking about at the very beginning, not now? Biden was the frontrunner at the start.

[TS Garp]

I only skimmed it, but wasn't he talking about at the very beginning, not now? Biden was the frontrunner at the start.

Exactly. It's a short piece that's worth reading in its entirety before passing judgment.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Exactly. It's a short piece that's worth reading in its entirety before passing judgment.

I did read the entire thing, but I never thought Biden was anything more than an attempt to throw a roadblock in front of Bernie--Anyone who's to be taken seriously should have that insight. Sure hit hit's on a couple of issues correctly, but for me to lend credibility to something I have to feel it at least comes from an unbiased perspective.

Though I may be wrong, I did not feel this.