Election 2020

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm proud of you.

err, thanks ??

[nullnor]

everyone needs peer pressure.

[revo]

Mike Bloomberg, seeing the writing on the wall, bows out of the 2020 race.

[onejayhawk]

I'm quite confident that you're wrong on Medicaid-for-All. I think that's a winner with folks of modest income and folks in collective bargaining units. If you can take health benefits out of the bargaining equation between employers and employees, there is much more room for steady wage increases. I also have to laugh at your suggestion that the Democratic Party is pro-Antifa, lol.

Definitely not collective bargaining. Health care has been a major Union benefit for decades. Same-as-your-neighbor is a step down.

No one said the Democratic party is pro-Antifa but they do tolerate the violence. Compare the reaction to the supposed violence against Jussie Smollett. There is no equivalence and there should be.

J

[B-Fly]

Mike Bloomberg, seeing the writing on the wall, bows out of the 2020 race.

I'm a bit disappointed. I wouldn't necessarily have voted for him because there are others with whom I'm more aligned on policy, but he was/is so good at operations and execution and is so incorruptible and comfortably independent of outside influence, whether from lobbyists or special interests or party bigwigs, that I think he could have really improved the functioning of the presidency and the executive branch of government.

[TranaGreg]

Definitely not collective bargaining. Health care has been a major Union benefit for decades. Same-as-your-neighbor is a step down.

for what it's worth the canadian health system evolved from "union hospitals", implemented broader by the provincial Social Credit parties of the time. Unions are the staunchest supporters of the public health care system up here.

[revo]

I'm a bit disappointed. I wouldn't necessarily have voted for him because there are others with whom I'm more aligned on policy, but he was/is so good at operations and execution and is so incorruptible and comfortably independent of outside influence, whether from lobbyists or special interests or party bigwigs, that I think he could have really improved the functioning of the presidency and the executive branch of government.

I agree, and I'm disappointed as well. But as he correctly noted, he stood a far better chance against Trump one-on-one than he did against the Dems.

[B-Fly]

I agree, and I'm disappointed as well. But as he correctly noted, he stood a far better chance against Trump one-on-one than he did against the Dems.

Not sure his ego would allow him to take a subordinate position, but he'd be a great White House Chief of Staff, driving and overseeing execution/performance.

[revo]

Sherrod Brown gets the hint and says he's not running in 2020.

[swampdragon]

I would have liked to vote for Brown

Here is an interesting strategy analysis
http://https://www.theatlantic.com/i...n=the-atlantic

[revo]

Latest poll from a critical battleground state. Trump eked out a 47.5% to 47.2% win in Michigan in the 2016 election:

Michigan: Trump vs. Biden	Biden 54, Trump 46	Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders	Sanders 52, Trump 47	Sanders +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Harris	Harris 51, Trump 49	Harris +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Warren	Warren 51, Trump 49	Warren +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Klobuchar	Klobuchar 53, Trump 47	Klobuchar +6
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden vs. Schultz	Biden 52, Trump 44, Schultz 4	Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders vs. Schultz	Sanders 49, Trump 45, Schultz 6	Sanders +4

[In the Corn]

Latest poll from a critical battleground state. Trump eked out a 47.5% to 47.2% win in Michigan in the 2016 election:

Michigan: Trump vs. Biden	Biden 54, Trump 46	Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders	Sanders 52, Trump 47	Sanders +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Harris	Harris 51, Trump 49	Harris +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Warren	Warren 51, Trump 49	Warren +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Klobuchar	Klobuchar 53, Trump 47	Klobuchar +6
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden vs. Schultz	Biden 52, Trump 44, Schultz 4	Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders vs. Schultz	Sanders 49, Trump 45, Schultz 6	Sanders +4

Interesting that the moderates seem to have wider margins. Hmmm...

[Sour Masher]

Interesting that the moderates seem to have wider margins. Hmmm...

That is a loaded Hmmm, there . I would be interested in hearing from the more progressive voices here on their interpretation of these numbers. I know the knee jerk reaction is we tried a moderate with HRC and it didn't work, but that is not evidence of the lack of electability of a moderate, and HRC had special, one could say unique, baggage. And I know one might also point out that Obama's compromised health care reform shows the futility of electing someone who does not fight for more radical changes. Those two examples represent different arguments. Focusing on HRC seems to be a focus on electablity, which I care a lot about at the moment. But focusing on Obama's tenure seems to focus more on the idea of "what do we win if we win?" argument. That is a good argument to make, but I'd really like to hear feedback on these poll numbers first.

I have in mind that old business adage about serving both your business and social causes--that you have to make it first before you make a difference. If a more progressive candidate isn't as electable, that is a concern to me. Do advocates of more progressive candidates think these poll numbers show a national preference for moderates, as it seems to, or do you think something is missing from this data? Is it at all concerning to you that progressive seem to have a tighter race with Trump than moderates?

[umjewman]

That is a loaded Hmmm, there . I would be interested in hearing from the more progressive voices here on their interpretation of these numbers. I know the knee jerk reaction is we tried a moderate with HRC and it didn't work, but that is not evidence of the lack of electability of a moderate, and HRC had special, one could say unique, baggage. And I know one might also point out that Obama's compromised health care reform shows the futility of electing someone who does not fight for more radical changes. Those two examples represent different arguments. Focusing on HRC seems to be a focus on electablity, which I care a lot about at the moment. But focusing on Obama's tenure seems to focus more on the idea of "what do we win if we win?" argument. That is a good argument to make, but I'd really like to hear feedback on these poll numbers first.

I have in mind that old business adage about serving both your business and social causes--that you have to make it first before you make a difference. If a more progressive candidate isn't as electable, that is a concern to me. Do advocates of more progressive candidates think these poll numbers show a national preference for moderates, as it seems to, or do you think something is missing from this data? Is it at all concerning to you that progressive seem to have a tighter race with Trump than moderates?

The state probably has something to do with it too. Michigan can go either way and has a lot of moderate Democrats, which makes the more moderate somewhat more appealing in this kind of poll. I'd like to see how other states are polling. Also, the most liberal/progressive section of Michigan, from my experience there, is the college town of Ann Arbor, where many of the voters may actually be registered in other states as out of town students. I assume the poll accounts for this and tries to not poll students who are actually registered in other states, but it could help explain a moderate doing better.

Are there recent polls in more progressive states? I'm curious how the more moderate vs. the more progressive is fairing in those polls.

[In the Corn]

The state probably has something to do with it too. Michigan can go either way and has a lot of moderate Democrats, which makes the more moderate somewhat more appealing in this kind of poll. I'd like to see how other states are polling. Also, the most liberal/progressive section of Michigan, from my experience there, is the college town of Ann Arbor, where many of the voters may actually be registered in other states as out of town students. I assume the poll accounts for this and tries to not poll students who are actually registered in other states, but it could help explain a moderate doing better.

Are there recent polls in more progressive states? I'm curious how the more moderate vs. the more progressive is fairing in those polls.

I think the Michigan Poll is way more important than the progressive/liberal states in how the Democrats beat Trump. There has been a lot of conversation from some of the more liberal RJ'ers that believe the Democratice Party should be endorsing someone from the progressive/liberal end of the party. I, and some others, have stated that to beat Trump, you have to win the moderates and the Michigan Poll bears that out.

I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't at some point look to a more liberal candidate, but 2020 isn't the year. Find someone that can connect with moderates and disenfrancised Republicans and please take down Trump in the election, then look to 2024 to move further left.

There are many who would rather sip the poison they are already drinking than an unknown that might kill them instantly.