Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1272830323382

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I'm being self-deprecating, but not sufficiently humble. I have let my arrogance off the leash with that non no no and the WANTS. Apologies.

    LB, you and I come from jurisdictions where dissension is death, or should be. I think the USA is different because of their public selection process. I hate it and love it.
  • {{{{{{{{Simon Toad}}}}}}}

    ...breathe...

    I realize you're concerned about the US, the fate of the world, etc. But, respectfully, if (God forbid) T is re-installed, at least he won't be your president. And if you're getting overwhelmed *now* about possibilities, maybe you should ease up a bit???

    FWIW.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ain't no Obama in this crowd. My thoughts are based on Republicans skewing old and old people voting in higher percentages. It is pretty much established that young people, who are more liberal, don't vote in high numbers. And that Republicans seem to be more united.
    Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.

    None of this has squat to do with whether or not Democrats infighting now will prevent us from uniting behind a candidate in a few months.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Las Vegas debate was a debacle for Bloomberg. I think Warren came out better than the rest.

    There were some people (obviously ones who'd never seen her in action) who claimed to be worried that Elizabeth Warren wasn't up to the task of debating Donald Trump. Last night showed she can demolish an arrogant, sexist, racist rich guy pretty efficiently.

    This is kind of assuming that all arrogant, sexist, racist rich guys are the same, in terms of how they present themselves, and on what points they are vulnerable.

    From what I saw, I would agree that Warren did well against Bloomberg, but Trump is also going to be coming into the game with a different arsenal. Warren's tactics might very well work against Trump, but I don't think that can be declared a foregone conclusion simply based on the Nevada debate.



  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I should say that I also think Warren's positioning against Trump would almost certainly be better than that of Hillary Clinton. Granted, a pretty low bar, given that HRC in 2016 didn't seem to have a clue what she was up against, and was seriously off-key in her populist messaging.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Half a billion dollars down the drain. Bloomberg's ego trip ran into the buffers. Warren made sure of that.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democratic primary voters plan to vote for the Democratic nominee even if their candidate does not receive the nomination. Thirteen-percent (13%) say they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if their chosen candidate does not win, while 15% say it will depend on who the nominee is.
    But where are these people, because that matters. I think I've mentioned my Bernie-supporting friend before. She says if Bernie isn't the nominee, she's voting Green. But she lives in Illinois, where the Dem candidate is getting the votes whatever she does. She admits that if she lived in Wisconsin or Michigan, she'd probably hold her nose and vote for whoever the Dem nominee was.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ain't no Obama in this crowd. My thoughts are based on Republicans skewing old and old people voting in higher percentages. It is pretty much established that young people, who are more liberal, don't vote in high numbers. And that Republicans seem to be more united.
    Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.

    None of this has squat to do with whether or not Democrats infighting now will prevent us from uniting behind a candidate in a few months.
    Where were was the unification in 2016? I'm not a massive Hillary Clinton fan, but where was the logic in not voting for her or simply not voting? It was obvious from the day he announced his candidacy what sort of president Trump would be. And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.
    I am just not seeing it. I hope I'm wrong.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ain't no Obama in this crowd. My thoughts are based on Republicans skewing old and old people voting in higher percentages. It is pretty much established that young people, who are more liberal, don't vote in high numbers. And that Republicans seem to be more united.
    Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.

    None of this has squat to do with whether or not Democrats infighting now will prevent us from uniting behind a candidate in a few months.
    Where were was the unification in 2016? I'm not a massive Hillary Clinton fan, but where was the logic in not voting for her or simply not voting? It was obvious from the day he announced his candidacy what sort of president Trump would be. And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.
    That’s partially because Clinton came with lots of baggage; thanks to decades of conditioning, lots of people didn’t like her and didn’t trust her.

    It’s partially because the way the 2016 primary process went left lots of Bernie supporters blaming the Democratic Party establishment for essentially shutting him (and them) out.

    And it’s partially because lots of people were sure Clinton was going to win, and were sure she would win without their vote. There was a significant Trump-has-no-chance-of-actually-getting-elected factor at play.

  • I am more hopeful than Simon. I think 45 will be voted out. Reports are the Nevada early voting indicates quite record Democratic turnout come Tuesday.

    It is not really that unusual for the Democratic party to have several candidates, but come Super Tuesday, it will probably fall down to just two contenders. Sanders will likely have the most delegates going into the convention, but just not enough to get him over the finish line. Watch Warren throw her delegates to him (and get the VP nod?) Mike, Joe, Pete, and Amy could have enough combined votes to get one of the over the top. Which one, I will not guess.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am more hopeful than Simon. I think 45 will be voted out. Reports are the Nevada early voting indicates quite record Democratic turnout come Tuesday.

    Two points.

    First, Nevada holds caucuses and this is the first time they’ve allowed early voting. Caucuses aren’t really built to accommodate early voting but they’ve built in this kludge rather than go to a simple, straightforward primary. Naturally the early turnout is a record.

    Second, if any Shipmates live in Nevada DON’T LISTEN TO @Gramps49!!! The Nevada Democratic Caucuses are SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 22! TOMORROW!!!. If you wait until Tuesday you will lose your chance to vote. American elections are usually held on Tuesdays so this is an understandable mistake, but if you’re going to have a caucus the least you can do is have it on a weekend.
  • Oh, I am so sorry Croesos!! I goofed. Unlike most other states where the primary caucus/vote is on Tuesday, NEVADA IS THIS SATURDAY. My bad.

    I happen to think the system of holding caucuses are on their way out--and good riddens.

  • Postscript: For any South Carolina shipmates, the Democratic primary in that state is also on a Saturday. February 29. One week from tomorrow.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I happen to think the system of holding caucuses are on their way out--and good riddens.

    There were 18 jurisdictions (14 states and 4 overseas American territories) that held caucuses in the 2016 Democratic nomination contest. In 2020 there are 6 (3 states and 3 overseas territories). After this year's Iowa debacle there's a good chance that the number will be zero in 2024.
  • Arizona's Primary is March 17. My ballot is sitting here, but there's no point in voting until I see who's still in the game by then.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Arizona's Primary is March 17. My ballot is sitting here, but there's no point in voting until I see who's still in the game by then.

    Much will be clearer after Super Tuesday (March 3, and an actual Tuesday). Though Nevada is an important test-of-concept in a certain way. It's the first test of the late billionaire strategy. tl;dr - a rich white dude enters the race too late to compete in early states (or decides to write them off) but dumps a metric shitload of money on later states to raise awareness. Michael Bloomberg entered too late to be on the ballot in either Nevada or South Carolina but Tom Steyer has been pummeling the airwaves in both of those states. Tomorrow will be our first indication of whether massive self-funded campaigns can turn out actual voters.

    Given that Steyer didn't manage to qualify for Tuesday's debate due to lack of polled support, early indications aren't favorable for him.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Postscript: For any South Carolina shipmates, the Democratic primary in that state is also on a Saturday. February 29. One week from tomorrow.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I happen to think the system of holding caucuses are on their way out--and good riddens.

    There were 18 jurisdictions (14 states and 4 overseas American territories) that held caucuses in the 2016 Democratic nomination contest. In 2020 there are 6 (3 states and 3 overseas territories). After this year's Iowa debacle there's a good chance that the number will be zero in 2024.

    I think the caucus system would work well on the Falkland Islands, the Faroe Islands, or maybe on the outer Hebrides. Anywhere where you can count the votes on your fingers and toes would work well, and where everyone, regardless of gender, wears thick woolen jumpers and smokes a pipe.

    @Golden Key As usual, I am being a massive Drama Queen. I am not yet a feverish mess of emotion. But I know its coming, from past experience. I will probably institute a total politics blackout at some point.

    On Bloomberg, if he spends up huge, and goes through with his promise to put his staff at the disposal of the eventual nominee, I will like that.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Arizona's Primary is March 17. My ballot is sitting here, but there's no point in voting until I see who's still in the game by then.

    Much will be clearer after Super Tuesday (March 3, and an actual Tuesday)...

    Yes, I'm waiting until the results of Super Tuesday come in. I'll still have time to mail or turn in my ballot.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I will be voting on Super Tuesday, and I'm pretty psyched that my vote is going to matter.

    @lilbuddha - What Nick Tamen said about obstacles to Democratic unity in 2016. That those things were problems is very much on people's minds now. I am hopeful that we learned something. And the results of the midterms and special elections also give me hope.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ain't no Obama in this crowd. My thoughts are based on Republicans skewing old and old people voting in higher percentages. It is pretty much established that young people, who are more liberal, don't vote in high numbers. And that Republicans seem to be more united.
    Interestingly, this New York Times article makes the case that high turnout is not necessarily a boost for the democrats. It depends on who turns out.

    None of this has squat to do with whether or not Democrats infighting now will prevent us from uniting behind a candidate in a few months.
    Where were was the unification in 2016? I'm not a massive Hillary Clinton fan, but where was the logic in not voting for her or simply not voting? It was obvious from the day he announced his candidacy what sort of president Trump would be. And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.
    That’s partially because Clinton came with lots of baggage; thanks to decades of conditioning, lots of people didn’t like her and didn’t trust her.

    It’s partially because the way the 2016 primary process went left lots of Bernie supporters blaming the Democratic Party establishment for essentially shutting him (and them) out.
    All that is true. And none of the current candidates have as much baggage. But most of them have some. Warren has establishment baggage. Sanders has socialist and establishment baggage. Buttigieg has gay baggage, etc. Enough to divide the electorate just enough to repeat 2016.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And it’s partially because lots of people were sure Clinton was going to win, and were sure she would win without their vote. There was a significant Trump-has-no-chance-of-actually-getting-elected factor at play.
    By the time the actual election rolled around, it was obvious he had a chance and the stakes were to high to stay home. But if voting were informed and rational, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    it was obvious he had a chance and the stakes were to high to stay home.

    Nice allusion. That was actually the catch-phrase repeated at the end of LBJ's Daisy ad, as well as every other ad from his campaign that year.

    I didn't know until now that Hillary's campaign had actually produced an ad with the actor who played Daisy(as she is colloquially known) talking about how bad a Trump presidency would be. I've always had the impression that the Dems in 2016 didn't do enough scaremongering, though I guess they gave it a shot.

    (Though honestly, a lot of people today probably wouldn't recognize the ad, and among those who would, at least some would think "Uh, didn't LBJ turn out to be biggest warmonger of all?")

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Where were was the unification in 2016? I'm not a massive Hillary Clinton fan, but where was the logic in not voting for her or simply not voting? It was obvious from the day he announced his candidacy what sort of president Trump would be. And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.
    I am just not seeing it. I hope I'm wrong.

    We keep letting the 2016 election results--an electoral college win for 45--obscure the fact that nearly 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Current Occupant. That may not be "unity," but wasn't it "unifying?" Doesn't it show that more people got behind Clinton, baggage and all, than got behind the Cantaloupe-in-Chief?
  • Ohher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Where were was the unification in 2016? I'm not a massive Hillary Clinton fan, but where was the logic in not voting for her or simply not voting? It was obvious from the day he announced his candidacy what sort of president Trump would be. And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.
    I am just not seeing it. I hope I'm wrong.

    We keep letting the 2016 election results--an electoral college win for 45--obscure the fact that nearly 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Current Occupant. That may not be "unity," but wasn't it "unifying?" Doesn't it show that more people got behind Clinton, baggage and all, than got behind the Cantaloupe-in-Chief?
    It is not obscured, it is irrelevant. The electoral college is the system in place and the only thing that matters.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    If that's true it's only the turnout in swing states that matters.
  • It’s far from irrelevant to the question you posed and the assertion you made, which were:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Where were was the unification in 2016? . . . . And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.

    More people voted for Clinton than for Trump in 2016—nearly 3 million more. So there was unification and people did get behind Clinton.

    The problem wasn’t that people generally didn’t unify and get behind Clinton. The problem, given the electoral college, was that in a relative handful of states that mattered, not enough people did/were persuaded. And the reasons for that included the reasons I outlined above.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Exactly. We talk like it's one election, but it's 50, and only some of them will be contested in November. I don't need to go talk to my neighbors about getting behind the Democratic candidate in November. It's California, we'll vote blue. But I know people who are talking about going to Arizona to knock on doors in October, and how much things like that happen will be crucial.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It’s far from irrelevant to the question you posed and the assertion you made, which were:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Where were was the unification in 2016? . . . . And yet people didn't get behind Clinton.

    More people voted for Clinton than for Trump in 2016—nearly 3 million more. So there was unification and people did get behind Clinton.

    The problem wasn’t that people generally didn’t unify and get behind Clinton. The problem, given the electoral college, was that in a relative handful of states that mattered, not enough people did/were persuaded. And the reasons for that included the reasons I outlined above.
    You add generally and that is different to what I said? 3 million is just over 1% of the adult population in 2016 and only 4% of Democrats. Not a large amount. But the main point is that the candidate needs to pull people in states that didn't happen in 2016. Obama did it. Whilst the current crop of candidates don't have the level of baggage that Clinton did, none of the have the charisma Obama did.
    After Trump and Brexit, perhaps I am too cynical and you are correct.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Charismaaaaaaaaa - Toast of London reference about Stephen Toast's bromance with John Hamm.

    Nice concession there LB. Hope people notice.
    Ruth wrote: »
    Exactly. We talk like it's one election, but it's 50, and only some of them will be contested in November. I don't need to go talk to my neighbors about getting behind the Democratic candidate in November. It's California, we'll vote blue. But I know people who are talking about going to Arizona to knock on doors in October, and how much things like that happen will be crucial.

    Post of the week. Ruth gets a special gumleaf she can use as a whistle.
  • Bernie Sanders declared winner in Nevada. Biden came in second.
  • Concerning Sanders's age, wouldn't having Buttigieg as a running mate essentially defuse that objection? It would also unite the factions within the Democrats. Or am I missing something?
  • No, Warren is the preferred running mate to take over his political machine. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is then Warren's ideal running mate once AOC turns 35. Buttigieg doesn't figure into it.

    There is a reason there hasn't been a brokered convention in the modern era. The primary system is designed to make sure it doesn't happen. A good showing for Sanders on Super Tuesday (California votes that day) would put him a long way in first place.
  • Except that many more people dislike Warren (fairly or not) than Buttigieg, and Buttigieg is closer than Warren to what passes for the political centre.
  • The VP position, ordinarily, isn't worth a kettle of warm spit (as the saying goes). If, however, due to his age you want a plausible successor to Bernie, you go with Warren. His base would accept that. They wouldn't accept Buttigieg who is too right wing.

    Given the thundering showing in Nevada and that he has won the popular vote in all three state contests so far, it is not clear that he needs a 'centrist' as VP.
  • Given the thundering showing in Nevada and that he has won the popular vote in all three state contests so far, it is not clear that he needs a 'centrist' as VP.

    As long he doesn't need "centrist" (from a left perspective) votes to beat Trump he'll romp home.
  • I don't want Warren as VP. I want her as Commerce Secretary.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    The VP position, ordinarily, isn't worth a kettle of warm spit (as the saying goes). If, however, due to his age you want a plausible successor to Bernie, you go with Warren. His base would accept that. They wouldn't accept Buttigieg who is too right wing.

    Given the thundering showing in Nevada and that he has won the popular vote in all three state contests so far, it is not clear that he needs a 'centrist' as VP.
    Sanders and Buttigieg tied in Iowa with 26.2% each. Sanders won in New Hampshire with 25.7%, to Buttigieg’s 24.4%. (Sanders got well over 50% in New Hampshire 4 years ago.) That means in each of those two states, almost three-quarters of voters didn’t vote for Sanders. Solid majorities in Iowa and New Hampshire didn’t vote for Sanders or Warren. And those are primaries, not the general election.

    In a general election, Sanders would have to appeal to voters way beyond his base. Having a centrist VP could help with that.

  • Elizabeth Warren is 70 and will be 71 before Election Day. She's only eight years younger than Bernie Sanders and seven years younger than Joe Biden. (And three years younger than the current incumbent.)
  • The VP position, ordinarily, isn't worth a kettle of warm spit (as the saying goes). If, however, due to his age you want a plausible successor to Bernie, you go with Warren. His base would accept that. They wouldn't accept Buttigieg who is too right wing.

    Given the thundering showing in Nevada and that he has won the popular vote in all three state contests so far, it is not clear that he needs a 'centrist' as VP.

    Again, though, we haven't seen the full impact of a Republican negative campaign.

    And for the record, I am not someone who thinks that a negative campaign is always successful: it worked against Dukakis because he didn't know how to respond properly, but it didn't work against Clinton after that, nor Obama later on, even though Obama's personal demographics were made-to-order for a GOP scare campaign.

    But I think Sanders would go into a general election with WAY more baggage than either Clinton or Obama.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Sanders doesn't need Buttigieg to balance out his age in some extreme way. He needs someone who will be prepared to be president, given the strong chance that he'll die in office. That person doesn't need to be under 40.

    The VP choice is mainly symbolic. You balance out the ticket so you can reassure big donors that their views will be represented in the new administration. You choose someone unlike yourself to appeal to a broader base of voters, and that difference doesn't have to be political - Sanders could choose a woman or a person of color to achieve that kind of balance. He could go with a centrist woman.

    But the VP choice mainly just has a chance to hurt you if you fuck it up, cf. Sarah Palin. Get it right and you mostly get someone who does a good job raising money and campaigning for you.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Deleted
  • Ruth wrote: »

    The VP choice is mainly symbolic. You balance out the ticket so you can reassure big donors that their views will be represented in the new administration. You choose someone unlike yourself to appeal to a broader base of voters, and that difference doesn't have to be political - Sanders could choose a woman or a person of color to achieve that kind of balance. He could go with a centrist woman.

    Yes, for example a money worshiping, Samaritan hating, whore monger choosing an evangelical Christian as VP.

  • Twilight wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »

    The VP choice is mainly symbolic. You balance out the ticket so you can reassure big donors that their views will be represented in the new administration. You choose someone unlike yourself to appeal to a broader base of voters, and that difference doesn't have to be political - Sanders could choose a woman or a person of color to achieve that kind of balance. He could go with a centrist woman.

    Yes, for example a money worshiping, Samaritan hating, whore monger choosing an evangelical Christian as VP.

    If only Bernie Sanders could find a VP who adores him as much as Michael loves Donald.
  • What do people think about Stacey Abrams for Bernie's VP? Personally, I adore her as a leader. I think it would make a good stepping stone for her. She could be the one to break the VP to C-in-C hoodo in 2024. There's no way Bernie is making it to 2028.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Ruth, thank you for getting my point. I was proposing Buttigieg as VP candidate only as a way of broadening the base, not because he's only 38(?). And whatever the symbolism of a VP, Buttigieg would get some on-the-job experience beyond South Bend.

    I do wonder whether Buttigieg's being a big ol' gay would actually lose the ticket that many votes. I think that it would be a zero sum. I could be wrong. I live in a foreign bubble.
  • I think as a running-mate Buttigieg would have a hard time rowing back comments like these:
    “I believe the best way to defeat Donald Trump and deliver for the American people is to broaden and galvanize the majority that supports us on critical issues,” Buttigieg said. “Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans.”
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    And whatever the symbolism of a VP, Buttigieg would get some on-the-job experience beyond South Bend.

    Doing what? The VP doesn't actually have any real duties. Buttigieg's not having been elected to any statewide office disqualifies him in my eyes.
    I do wonder whether Buttigieg's being a big ol' gay would actually lose the ticket that many votes. I think that it would be a zero sum.

    I think he'd lose some, the way Obama lost some votes for being black and Hillary Clinton did for being female. I do find it interesting that we're having more discussions about the women's electability than the gay man's.
  • Dave W - thanks I did mean to mention those comments. Yes, he'd have a lot to walk back, but it would depend how it was framed, e.g., look how moderate the ticket has become, we all say things in the heat of the primaries. Bush Sr called Reaganomics "voodoo" until he became Reagan's running mate. I'm certain that everyone would still raise an eyebrow.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I
    Ruth wrote: »
    And whatever the symbolism of a VP, Buttigieg would get some on-the-job experience beyond South Bend.

    Doing what? The VP doesn't actually have any real duties. Buttigieg's not having been elected to any statewide office disqualifies him in my eyes.
    I do wonder whether Buttigieg's being a big ol' gay would actually lose the ticket that many votes. I think that it would be a zero sum.

    I think he'd lose some, the way Obama lost some votes for being black and Hillary Clinton did for being female. I do find it interesting that we're having more discussions about the women's electability than the gay man's.

    The VP doesn't have any real duties except as the occasional spare, but it rather would depend on the informal distribution of responsibilities within the WH. It could be treated as a sort of bring-your-kid-to-work-day, or it could be more substantive.

    As to the woman/gay man divide, I've noticed the same thing. It has surprised me a bit. Sexism stronger than homophobia? Who knew?

    Although, as a complete aside, that woman in Iowa who wanted to recast her vote was breathtaking in more than one respect. (A) Pretty homophobic. (B) Pretty ignorant not to know that Buttigieg is gay. (C) Pretty ignorant to think that she would be allowed a do-over.

    I'm merely observing about the specific woman. I'm not advocating the rescinding of the 19th Amendment.

  • I reckon there is still a great big pool of anti-gay sentiment in many countries, including the USA. Is it the Millennials who use 'gay' to disparage things?

    In my country, many recent immigrants are social conservatives. They tend to oppose same sex marriage and liberalisation of church teachings on sex and sexuality. They are of course joined in this by many less recent immigrants, such as us Anglos.

    I feel like this is an issue in which many shipmates are inside a liberal bubble, including me. After all, who wants to expose themselves to prejudice and hate?
This discussion has been closed.