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

[Holman]

Marianne Williamson insists that she is still in the race as she lays off her entire campaign staff.

She's going to do this thing on good vibes alone, I guess.

[Holman]

Julian Castro just endorsed Warren.

Is this the first case this cycle of someone dropping out and explicitly throwing their support to another candidate?

[Defiant]

Ryan endorsed Biden
Hickenlooper endorsed Bennet
Gravel endorsed Gabbard and Sanders

[Holman]

Ryan
Hickenlooper
Gravel

Who?


(jk)

[malchior]

Allegedly Bloomberg is dropping $10M on a superb owl ad. I fear that he is in it to win it...for Trump by going 3rd party.

[El Guapo]

Allegedly Bloomberg is dropping $10M on a superb owl ad. I fear that he is in it to win it...for Trump by going 3rd party.

I haven't seen any indications that he plans to do a third-party run, although his Democratic run is probably doomed (though he's polling better than I had expected).

[malchior]

He is dumping in a lot of money to only be a guy who is getting no meaningful traction in the Dem space.

Also I cant with Biden. He is fucking clueless.

https://mobile.twitter.com/aterkel/stat ... 1194787845

[El Guapo]

(1) It is (to my surprise) not true that Bloomberg is getting no meaningful traction. He's polling in fifth place in a crowded field, at around 5.5%, ahead of Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, and Steyer.

(2) It is not a lot of money to him

(3) He pretty strongly denounced third party spoiler candidates early in the year and said that he wouldn't do that, in the context of attacking Shultz for his (since ended) third party run. Could he change his mind later? Sure. I don't see any particular reason to see that as likely, though. Contrast that with Gabbard who has pretty explicitly flirted with the concept.

(4) I can't believe that Bennet is still technically in the race.

[Holman]

Since Bloomberg is running to defend the honor of billionaires against Sanders and Warren, it seems like the more secure course for him would be to massively fund one of the centrists in the race.

[malchior]

(1) It is (to my surprise) not true that Bloomberg is getting no meaningful traction. He's polling in fifth place in a crowded field, at around 5.5%, ahead of Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, and Steyer.

He is not anywhere close to winning a primary or a caucus. The first is about a month away. That is what I meant by meaningful traction. He needs to at least place third on one probably to remain viable. Scratch that...he can scrape by for awhile because he is his own bank but he needs to improve dramatically in the next two months.

(2) It is not a lot of money to him

True. He could throw in the towel mid-Feb. I've got that tickle again though. We live in an age of megalomaniacs acting because nothing hurts them. Not only isnt it a lot of money but if Trump wins...well he is still filthy rich. No skin off his back.

(3) He pretty strongly denounced third party spoiler candidates early in the year and said that he wouldn't do that, in the context of attacking Shultz for his (since ended) third party run. Could he change his mind later? Sure. I don't see any particular reason to see that as likely, though. Contrast that with Gabbard who has pretty explicitly flirted with the concept.

Fair but if he changed his mind it wouldn't shock me because of...above.

That said I wouldn't call it likely yet...

(4) I can't believe that Bennet is still technically in the race.

Right. He and Williamson both running for President out of their houses or something.

[El Guapo]

(1) It is (to my surprise) not true that Bloomberg is getting no meaningful traction. He's polling in fifth place in a crowded field, at around 5.5%, ahead of Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, and Steyer.

He is not anywhere close to winning a primary or a caucus. The first is about a month away. That is what I meant by meaningful traction. He needs to at least place third on one probably to remain viable. Scratch that...he can scrape by for awhile because he is his own bank but he needs to improve dramatically in the next two months.

(2) It is not a lot of money to him

True. He could throw in the towel mid-Feb. I've got that tickle again though. We live in an age of megalomaniacs acting because nothing hurts them. Not only isnt it a lot of money but if Trump wins...well he is still filthy rich. No skin off his back.

(3) He pretty strongly denounced third party spoiler candidates early in the year and said that he wouldn't do that, in the context of attacking Shultz for his (since ended) third party run. Could he change his mind later? Sure. I don't see any particular reason to see that as likely, though. Contrast that with Gabbard who has pretty explicitly flirted with the concept.

Fair but if he changed his mind it wouldn't shock me because of...above.

That said I wouldn't call it likely yet...

(4) I can't believe that Bennet is still technically in the race.

Right. He and Williamson both running for President out of their houses or something.

As I understand it Bloomberg's strategy is to skip IA and NH (where he has no shot anyway) and gear himself towards the more populous / Super Tuesday states. Since he's not competing in IA / NH he sets media expectations there to essentially zero. He doesn't have to worry about being forced to drop out after those states, and can generate a "hear comes Bloomberg!" media buzz if he does well after that point. Seems unlikely to win, but 5.5% is way better than I expected for him at this point, so who knows.

I do think that Bloomberg makes a brokered convention more likely, though. If he doesn't clear the threshold in the early states, but gains, uh, "Bloom-mentum" later on, he could wind up getting enough delegates to deny the leader an outright majority. *That* could turn into a shitshow (especially if Sanders is the second place delegate holder in this scenario).

[El Guapo]

538's primary forecast model is now live. Topline projected chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates:

Biden - 2 in 5 (42%)
Sanders - 1 in 5 (22%)
No one (e.g., brokered convention) - 1 in 8 (13%)
Warren - 1 in 9 (12%)
Buttigieg - 1 in 10 (9%)
All others - 1 in 50 (2%)

[Daehawk]

Whenever Trump is out you can bet the GOP will be out the next day in front of mics "I had nothing to do with this. All fake news. Why I was out sick at home all those years"

[YellowKing]

It's amazing how far Warren's stock has fallen. Peaked too early? And her healthcare plan didn't help matters. She has never recovered from that.

[Holman]

It's amazing how far Warren's stock has fallen. Peaked too early? And her healthcare plan didn't help matters. She has never recovered from that.

She's third nationally, and close to second.

Right now the race is:
26.6% Biden
18.1% Sanders
15.4% Warren
7.1% Buttigieg

It seems like there are two lanes: Biden/Buttigieg centrists and Sanders/Warren progressives.

A lot can happen in the next few months. At this point in 2004 John Howard Dean was decisively in the lead, and in 2008 it was Hillary Clinton.

[pr0ner]

You mean Howard Dean, don't you?

[Isgrimnur]

YEEEAAARRRRGGGHHHH!

[Holman]

You mean Howard Dean, don't you?

I do!

[Kraken]

Right now the race is:
26.6% Biden
18.1% Sanders
15.4% Warren
7.1% Buttigieg

It seems like there are two lanes: Biden/Buttigieg centrists and Sanders/Warren progressives.

If you view that as progressives vs. conservatives, it's tied. And since a third of Dems still support none of the above, it's hard to say which way it will go. As of several weeks ago Warren polled as most people's #2 choice; if that's still true, she might capture a good share of that rogue third.

I worry that all of the Dems are defining themselves too strongly by Trump. I still don't think he's going to be the nominee. They can't keep doping and propping him up for 10 more months. There'll be chaos on both sides when he drops.

[hitbyambulance]

i would have thought any of Harris/Booker/Castro would at least be in fourth place

[Holman]

i would have thought any of Harris/Booker/Castro would at least be in fourth place

Well, there are reasons why two of those have already dropped out.

[noxiousdog]

538 has released their primary model, and it's terrifying to me.

I understand he's currently running second, but if Sanders gets the nomination Trump gets four more years. There's no way enough moderates are voting for a self-avowed socialist. Sanders is the only democratic candidate I'd have to think twice voting for even though I'd still do it. But if I'm that much on the fence, forget about pulling anybody to the right of me.

[Defiant]

I understand he's currently running second, but if Sanders gets the nomination Trump gets four more years. There's no way enough moderates are voting for a self-avowed socialist.

Likely this. (I think he has a shot, but is one of the weaker candidates because he would be very vulnerable to attacks)

Sanders is the only democratic candidate I'd have to think twice voting for even though I'd still do it. But if I'm that much on the fence, forget about pulling anybody to the right of me.

I would replace that with Gabbard (I've got a few basic standards in order to vote for someone, and it's not clear to me that Gabbard meets those low standards). I would vote for Sanders without hesitating - solely because of Trump - but I'd be voting against him down ballot. Him as leader of the party would also make me not feel welcome in the Democratic party.

[pr0ner]

I do think a Sanders nomination would be more evidence that tribal politics will remain the norm for the foreseeable future in the US.

[Kraken]

I do think a Sanders nomination would be more evidence that tribal politics will remain the norm for the foreseeable future in the US.

Yes, it's pure us vs. them, which the other side has been practicing since Obama. Should the Democrats forget about an ever-receding "we" and play the same game? Go bold, or go boring? I personally prefer bold, but I can't tell you confidently that it's the winning move.

[YellowKing]

Of the top 4, Sanders would be the only one I'd have a REALLY hard time pulling the lever for. I would do it because no way in hell I'm voting for Trump, but I would NOT be happy about it.

[noxiousdog]

Is there any compelling reason to prefer Sanders to Warren?

[Holman]

Is there any compelling reason to prefer Sanders to Warren?

Dead-end purity?

[Smoove_B]

Is it a matter of tactics? Sanders wants revolution, Warren advocates policy update/changes?

Vox suggests:

“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said

That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.

[Unagi]

Fear of misogynistic baggage that comes with the Warren candidate, I suppose ...

Personally, I like her better (would be ok with either) - but this isn’t the time for pushing hard left so i myself am begrudgingly admitting it’s probably best for it to be Biden.

Buttigieg is my real pick. But if he doesn’t have the numbers , I can’t risk that.

[pr0ner]

Cory Booker has suspended his campaign.

That still leaves TWELVE active candidates.

[Defiant]

Disappointing, as he was one of my favorites, but it was clear a while ago that he wasn't gaining any traction and had virtually no chance of becoming the nominee.

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1 ... 2773228545

[malchior]

Is it a matter of tactics? Sanders wants revolution, Warren advocates policy update/changes?

Vox suggests:

“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said

That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.

You always have to apply the 'American' filter here where anything up to and including any support for unions is hardline socialist of the communist bent. Instead, Bernie is more like true liberal by European standards whereas Warren would be a market liberal. Is he a socialist? Yes. In the sense that he thinks the government should address the imbalance between labor and capital here and promote general welfare more. But you'd think by people's reaction to Bernie that he was ready to raise the hammer & sickle here. It is pretty ridiculous.

[El Guapo]

Is it a matter of tactics? Sanders wants revolution, Warren advocates policy update/changes?

Vox suggests:

“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said

That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.

You always have to apply the 'American' filter here where anything up to and including any support for unions is hardline socialist of the communist bent. Instead, Bernie is more like true liberal by European standards whereas Warren would be a market liberal. Is he a socialist? Yes. In the sense that he thinks the government should address the imbalance between labor and capital here and promote general welfare more. But you'd think by people's reaction to Bernie that they are ready to raise the hammer & sickle here. It is pretty ridiculous.

I mean, the key thing is that Sander is a socialist in the sense that he himself defines himself as a socialist. There's a world of difference politically between a situation where Republicans are like "the Democratic candidate is a socialist!" and the candidate is like "I just want everyone in this country to have money and opportunity" and a situation where Republicans say that and the Democratic candidate is like "Yes I am."

[malchior]

Yeah. He is trying to 'take back' what socialism means but he is fighting against a populace that at large has no idea what 'socialism' really means. Other than it is *bad*!

[Kraken]

Is there any compelling reason to prefer Sanders to Warren?

She is the candidate of the elite (says Bernie).

Apparently under all that aw-shucks Oklahoma stuff, she's still a Harvard professor.

The script instructs Sanders volunteers to tell voters leaning toward the Massachusetts senator that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”

“I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]” the script begins. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” It then pivots to the criticisms of Warren.

More of the script at the link.

[Lagom Lite]

538 has released their primary model, and it's terrifying to me.

I understand he's currently running second, but if Sanders gets the nomination Trump gets four more years. There's no way enough moderates are voting for a self-avowed socialist. Sanders is the only democratic candidate I'd have to think twice voting for even though I'd still do it. But if I'm that much on the fence, forget about pulling anybody to the right of me.

Sanders is running a campaign of enthusiasm. He's trying to get traditional non-voters to participate (independents & young voters). He's not going for moderate voters per se.

And, as you say, the alternative would be Trump. So many moderates would probably reason like you and still vote (D).

I suppose I don't fully understand why he's such a controversial candidate. By European standards, he's a centrist!

[Paingod]

If it's Biden, who's his second? I don't see Sanders accepting second-fiddle to anyone.

[El Guapo]

If it's Biden, who's his second? I don't see Sanders accepting second-fiddle to anyone.

He'll want someone who:

(1) is not a white male
(2) is younger
(3) can help him shore up his left flank while not losing too many moderates.

Actually though he is a white male, Sherrod Brown might be a good fit, although that would bork the Democrats in the Senate. I could see Booker, though I'm not sure how much he would help on the left flank. Warren could fit the bill, although she's not that much younger.

[noxiousdog]

I suppose I don't fully understand why he's such a controversial candidate. By European standards, he's a centrist!

I'm not sure I agree with that, but this isn't Europe.

Trump will beat him.