Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

I've been blown away by Nina Turner, Sanders' national co-chair, throughout the primary. Her speech in New York really called out Elizabeth Warren strongly without even saying her name. I've been hearing that she's his most likely VP pick. Bernie mentioned in a recent interview that he would want a VP who represented a different perspective, maybe a woman of colour, probably someone younger. So that felt like a strong hint. Some folks think that means Tulsi Gabbard, but Tulsi is eyeing Secretary of State more than VP. If Tulsi can damage Warren on her military record like she intended to do in the last debate, but the attack wasn't quick enough and they cut to commercial... if she connects in hitting Warren like she did Kamala and Tim Ryan, she could earn something for it. She's more well liked by Republicans than Democrats, and she constantly embraces the talking points about finding common ground with the opposition, I think she's running to join Sanders and banking on him winning, so she should be fun to watch going forward. She's 1 poll away from qualifying for Nov. debate. Castro is further away, more likely to drop out.

Anyway, the last clue I needed was in the recent Nina Turner interview on The Breakfast Club. Great interview. But there's a point where she frames something as "we have the policies that address these issues." The way she stated it really sounded like she was taking some personal ownership. I'm 90% sure that if he wins, she's his VP pick, and if he names her before South Carolina, she will give a boost as soon as he names her. She's been awesome.

Can someone give me some background as to when candidates start naming their VP picks? I'm not too familiar with the history of that. Thanks!

[nots]

Some interesting polling today from the NYT:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In every state poll, Biden does better vs Trump than Warren does (except Texas where they are both -7).
That really ought to be instructive to Democrats.

[Teenwolf]

Some interesting polling today from the NYT:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In every state poll, Biden does better vs Trump than Warren does (except Texas where they are both -7).
That really ought to be instructive to Democrats.

Interesting interpretation. Warren does worse than Biden across the board, but you neglect to mention that Sanders is the strongest of the 3 vs Trump in several of the state polls.

I do think your general premise that Warren would be likely to lose to Trump might be correct. Her means tested white paper policy wonk approach might not appeal to enough of a broader coalition to beat Trump. But I also think the high polling for Biden ignores the present reality of his weaknesses. He would be absolutely certain to lose to Trump. People are slowly realizing why Obama warned Biden he didn't need to run, don't damage your (*my) legacy, and why Obama isn't endorsing Biden. When the entire campaign is built around electability, that image is shattered after 4th place finishes in the first 2 states. I mean, I hope anyway.

[revo]

Interesting interpretation. Warren does worse than Biden across the board, but you neglect to mention that Sanders is the strongest of the 3 vs Trump in several of the state polls.

I do think your general premise that Warren would be likely to lose to Trump might be correct. Her means tested white paper policy wonk approach might not appeal to enough of a broader coalition to beat Trump. But I also think the high polling for Biden ignores the present reality of his weaknesses. He would be absolutely certain to lose to Trump. People are slowly realizing why Obama warned Biden he didn't need to run, don't damage your (*my) legacy, and why Obama isn't endorsing Biden. When the entire campaign is built around electability, that image is shattered after 4th place finishes in the first 2 states. I mean, I hope anyway.

How many months of polls, and how many debates are needed, for the general public to be exposed to Biden's "weaknesses"? He still may very well not emerge as the Dem choice, but that would be a mistake as the other top candidates are too far left to attract the independents.

Iowa and NH are important, but in the grand scheme of things, matter very little for the stayers. The last three GOP winners of the Iowa caucuses were Cruz, Santorum and Huckabee, and two of the last three winners of the NH Primary on the Dem side were Bernie and Hillary (2008). These two elections are better for weeding out the field than they are for determining a winner.

[Sour Masher]

How many months of polls, and how many debates are needed, for the general public to be exposed to Biden's "weaknesses"? He still may very well not emerge as the Dem choice, but that would be a mistake as the other top candidates are too far left to attract the independents.

Iowa and NH are important, but in the grand scheme of things, matter very little for the stayers. The last three GOP winners of the Iowa caucuses were Cruz, Santorum and Huckabee, and two of the last three winners of the NH Primary on the Dem side were Bernie and Hillary (2008). These two elections are better for weeding out the field than they are for determining a winner.

How is Mayor Pete polling--you look at all this a lot more than me. Is there any movement on him?

[B-Fly]

How is Mayor Pete polling--you look at all this a lot more than me. Is there any movement on him?

He's back in the hunt for a possible upset victory in Iowa, but doesn't perform as well as Biden, Warren or Sanders in most of the head-to-head polling with Trump, despite that he's arguably most rhetorically suited to appeal to moderates and independents in a general election. Much of it may be the lower name recognition. I think Beto's exit helps Buttigieg, as would additional winnowing of the field of credible candidates under the age of 70. If he can finish first or second in Iowa and be the last under-70 candidate left standing, I think he'd have a puncher's chance. I don't have a clear sense of how much he'd be hurt by homophobia, however.

[Sour Masher]

He's back in the hunt for a possible upset victory in Iowa, but doesn't perform as well as Biden, Warren or Sanders in most of the head-to-head polling with Trump, despite that he's arguably most rhetorically suited to appeal to moderates and independents in a general election. Much of it may be the lower name recognition. I think Beto's exit helps Buttigieg, as would additional winnowing of the field of credible candidates under the age of 70. If he can finish first or second in Iowa and be the last under-70 candidate left standing, I think he'd have a puncher's chance. I don't have a clear sense of how much he'd be hurt by homophobia, however.

The last point worries me. I posted a poll that suggested a surprising number of voters are still not ready to support a gay candidate, sadly--only 50% of voters said that would even consider supporting a gay candidate. Equally disturbing is that an even greater number of voters do not believe other voters will support a gay candidate, with only 40% thinking the nation would elect a gay candidate and only 25% saying they think their neighbors would vote for a gay candidate. That tells me he has a really steep hill to climb--even steeper the the biases others like Sanders and Warren seem to have (but I have not seen polls for women or Jewish candidates lately). Still, despite all of that, he seems like the person best positioned to surpass Biden as the moderate of choice to take on Sanders/Warren.

[nots]

Interesting interpretation. Warren does worse than Biden across the board, but you neglect to mention that Sanders is the strongest of the 3 vs Trump in several of the state polls.

I do think your general premise that Warren would be likely to lose to Trump might be correct. Her means tested white paper policy wonk approach might not appeal to enough of a broader coalition to beat Trump. But I also think the high polling for Biden ignores the present reality of his weaknesses. He would be absolutely certain to lose to Trump. People are slowly realizing why Obama warned Biden he didn't need to run, don't damage your (*my) legacy, and why Obama isn't endorsing Biden. When the entire campaign is built around electability, that image is shattered after 4th place finishes in the first 2 states. I mean, I hope anyway.

Sanders does better against Trump in 3 of the 9 states the NYT polled than Biden does. Biden does better in 6 states.
Does that make you feel better?

[Teenwolf]

Sanders does better against Trump in 3 of the 9 states the NYT polled than Biden does. Biden does better in 6 states.
Does that make you feel better?

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you honestly think, based on these polls, that Biden would be more likely than Sanders or Warren to defeat Trump? Biden with under $9 Mil cash on hand, 58% of his donations are from max donors... vs Trump's $150 Mil, and clear ammo to use vs Biden, regarding Hunter's entire corrupt career... you really think these polls outweigh all of his vulnerabilities, not to mention clear mental degradation rendering him unable to complete full sentences... really?

[Teenwolf]

The last point worries me. I posted a poll that suggested a surprising number of voters are still not ready to support a gay candidate, sadly--only 50% of voters said that would even consider supporting a gay candidate. Equally disturbing is that an even greater number of voters do not believe other voters will support a gay candidate, with only 40% thinking the nation would elect a gay candidate and only 25% saying they think their neighbors would vote for a gay candidate. That tells me he has a really steep hill to climb--even steeper the the biases others like Sanders and Warren seem to have (but I have not seen polls for women or Jewish candidates lately). Still, despite all of that, he seems like the person best positioned to surpass Biden as the moderate of choice to take on Sanders/Warren.

Public policy polling recently showed 6% of voters wouldn't vote for a Jew, but I didn't see where women were at. I know both were much lower than LGBTQ2+.

Buttigieg has no shot, as black voters are allergic to him. Can you imagine if the tapes from Buttigieg's police department came out during a general election? Officers calling the police chief the n-word, the police chief in question who Buttigieg fired. He's toxic to black voters for a reason.

[nots]

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you honestly think, based on these polls, that Biden would be more likely than Sanders or Warren to defeat Trump? Biden with under $9 Mil cash on hand, 58% of his donations are from max donors... vs Trump's $150 Mil, and clear ammo to use vs Biden, regarding Hunter's entire corrupt career... you really think these polls outweigh all of his vulnerabilities, not to mention clear mental degradation rendering him unable to complete full sentences... really?

As we have stated before, the polls aren’t very predictive right now, but they what we have to talk about now. So, assuming the NYT polls are accurate, if Warren were to lose FL, PA, NV, MI and WI as the polls say she would, then Trump will win. The polls currently show Biden winning those states, so he would win. The good news for you is there is plenty of time for the polls to reset. The bad news for you is that as of today, they clearly show who has the best chance to win and it ain’t Warren or Sanders.

As for personal view or prediction: Warren will lose to Trump. She underachieved in her previous elections and her middle class tax increase free MFA rollout on Friday was delusional. She may be popular in the Twittersphere and with the WaPo editorial board, but her stuff isn’t going to sell with blue collar Democrats. Again, check her results out relative to Markey in past elections.

Biden will beat Trump. He may not have a lot of cash on hand now, but if he’s the nominee the cash will roll in to beat Trump. He’s affable and his team will do what it can to blunt his gaffs. The Hunter stuff will be water under the bridge by the time the election rolls around.

Sanders may or may not beat Trump. He does well in Pa and Mi, which are 2 states the Dems need to have to win, but if the Reps can tie him to a massive middle class tax increase, it will be a hard slog for him. There is a lot of socialism stuff you can tie him to butHis honesty (or candor might be a better word) is refreshing especially in comparison to Warren. He would have a shot, but I also think there is close to a 0% chance he will be the nominee. He would need Warren to drop out and endorse him. Every time I see a video like the one you posted this morning of his ‘VP’ , I think that becomes more and more unlikely.
Just my opinion.

[revo]

As we have stated before, the polls aren’t very predictive right now, but they what we have to talk about now. So, assuming the NYT polls are accurate, if Warren were to lose FL, PA, NV, MI and WI as the polls say she would, then Trump will win. The polls currently show Biden winning those states, so he would win. The good news for you is there is plenty of time for the polls to reset. The bad news for you is that as of today, they clearly show who has the best chance to win and it ain’t Warren or Sanders.

As for personal view or prediction: Warren will lose to Trump. She underachieved in her previous elections and her middle class tax increase free MFA rollout on Friday was delusional. She may be popular in the Twittersphere and with the WaPo editorial board, but her stuff isn’t going to sell with blue collar Democrats. Again, check her results out relative to Markey in past elections.

Biden will beat Trump. He may not have a lot of cash on hand now, but if he’s the nominee the cash will roll in to beat Trump. He’s affable and his team will do what it can to blunt his gaffs. The Hunter stuff will be water under the bridge by the time the election rolls around.

Sanders may or may not beat Trump. He does well in Pa and Mi, which are 2 states the Dems need to have to win, but if the Reps can tie him to a massive middle class tax increase, it will be a hard slog for him. There is a lot of socialism stuff you can tie him to butHis honesty (or candor might be a better word) is refreshing especially in comparison to Warren. He would have a shot, but I also think there is close to a 0% chance he will be the nominee. He would need Warren to drop out and endorse him. Every time I see a video like the one you posted this morning of his ‘VP’ , I think that becomes more and more unlikely.
Just my opinion.

Absolutely. TW needs to remember that there's one clear GOPer vs. 20 Dems. Once the field gets winnowed down to one Dem, the $$ will be rolling in.

[Sour Masher]

Public policy polling recently showed 6% of voters wouldn't vote for a Jew, but I didn't see where women were at. I know both were much lower than LGBTQ2+.

Buttigieg has no shot, as black voters are allergic to him. Can you imagine if the tapes from Buttigieg's police department came out during a general election? Officers calling the police chief the n-word, the police chief in question who Buttigieg fired. He's toxic to black voters for a reason.

Buttigieg is smart and articulate enough to successfully explain, as he has, why he had to fire the police chief, and why at the same time, any such tapes emerging would reflect values his is diametrically opposed to. Certainly, this stuff plays into how poorly he is doing among black voters, but based on my experiences, I wonder how much homophobia plays into it as well. The black community, on the whole, has been less supportive of things like gay marriage, but I have not seen a recent breakdown of their support for electing a gay president.

Still, any time I get worried about such things, I remember what Obama was able to do. The right person with the right message at the right time can overcome biases. I don't know if a 37 year old with no national political experience has what it takes right now, but I do think he'd destroy Trump in debates.

[nullnor]

The right person with the right message at the right time can overcome biases.

nope. if people are trying to win over trump voters, your wasting your time. or any voter for that matter.

[Ken]

nope. if people are trying to win over trump voters, your wasting your time. or any voter for that matter.

... huh?