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

[Fireball]

Thats why all positions need term limits.

Legislative term limits are deeply anti-democratic and would destroy what's left of our governing system. Being a legislator is hard, complicated work and it takes time to get good at it. Further, political power in a system cannot be eliminated, only reallocated. If you take power away from the legislature by reducing the effectiveness of its members, that power transfers to the executive, which is very bad, or to unelected staffers or lobbyists, which is worse (and note I say that as a legislative staffer).

One of the problems we're having in our government is that we've had repeated wave elections in the last two decades: 2006 Democratic wave, 2008 Democratic wave, 2010 Republican wave, 2014 Republican wave, 2018 Democratic wave. The result is that more than half of Congress has been in office less than eight years, and around two thirds have been in office less than a decade (IIRC, I did the math about a week or so ago).

If you want to improve our government, you need to reform our electoral system to reduce the power of money and address gerrymandering, and undo some of the changes that have come about in the last few decades such as shorter workweeks in Congress leading to members going back and forth to their districts every weekend.

[Fireball]

\I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying the older politicians aren't under control of corporate lobbyists? Because that is has been a multi-generational problem here; generally *all* the politicians are "bought" with very few exceptions.

This is 100% untrue. Most members of Congress aren't "bought". In fact, back when more politicians were "bought" we had far less polarization and a far better functioning government — not that corruption back then was a good thing. The problems in Congress today often stem from the fact that we have far more ideologues in Congress who are harder to unseat due to partisan gerrymandering. The members who have political reasons to be less ideological are usually the first ones wiped out in wave elections, meaning that only the hardcore ideologues have the opportunity to advance in seniority, learn the process, etc.

More competitive elections are the solution to most of the problems in Congress.

[Fireball]

The NYT double endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar is exactly the thing that scares me about this election: The democrats are so torn between the progressive and centrist ideals, and I'm deeply concerned that's going to prevent them from coalescing behind any one candidate. Just as the Times was apparently unable to do.

I agree with your concern. I think the Times has successfully identified the two candidates from the two "lanes" who are most likely to be able to unify the party.

I also agree that Biden is the most likely nominee by a mile.

My preference at the moment:

Warren
Klobuchar
Biden

I wouldn't personally consider voting for any of the others in the primary.

[El Guapo]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.

Did voters reject the status quo in 2016? Would you say the same thing if Clinton had won an electoral college victory that year? If not, then it's hard to see how ~ 80,000 voters in MI, PA, & WI can mean the difference between "voters" upholding vs. rejecting the status quo.

[malchior]

\I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying the older politicians aren't under control of corporate lobbyists? Because that is has been a multi-generational problem here; generally *all* the politicians are "bought" with very few exceptions.

This is 100% untrue. Most members of Congress aren't "bought". In fact, back when more politicians were "bought" we had far less polarization and a far better functioning government — not that corruption back then was a good thing. The problems in Congress today often stem from the fact that we have far more ideologues in Congress who are harder to unseat due to partisan gerrymandering. The members who have political reasons to be less ideological are usually the first ones wiped out in wave elections, meaning that only the hardcore ideologues have the opportunity to advance in seniority, learn the process, etc.

More competitive elections are the solution to most of the problems in Congress.

It's not 100% untrue. "Bought" for me reflects the policy outcomes we see from the corrosive effects of money in politics (e.g. dialing for dollars, dark money, etc.).

[Zarathud]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.

Voters rejected Hillary Clinton’s experience in 2016.

[Defiant]

A twitter thread from a month ago on people Sanders has hired to his campaign without doing enough vetting

[hepcat]

[Holman]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.

Voters rejected Hillary Clinton’s experience in 2016.

They rejected it by negative 3,000,000 votes.

[YellowKing]

Offset a bit of course by people who just didn't bother to vote because they couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Hillary. The point remains that Trump's election was hardly a mandate, and we're not even counting the influence Russia had in boosting Trump in those key states nor Jill Stein's siphoning of votes.

[Holman]

A twitter thread from a month ago on people Sanders has hired to his campaign without doing enough vetting

Judging from some Bernie staffer and surrogate behavior on Twitter, I imagine that campaign is a hothouse of True Believers unconcerned with anything but loyalty. There's a real bunker mentality in place.

Must be a Populism thing.

[Kraken]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.

Voters rejected Hillary Clinton’s experience in 2016.

They also made Trump the R nominee, over a large field of more qualified opponents. He was clearly the "blow it up and burn it down" choice.

They rejected it by negative 3,000,000 votes.

Democrats could win by 6 million this November, and it won't matter if those votes are concentrated in blue states.

2016 was a change election and Clinton was the no-change candidate. If Biden wins the nod, Dems are betting that 2020 is a change-back election.

[El Guapo]

My reservation about any centrist Democrat, and especially about Biden, is that they stand for restoring the status quo that voters rejected in 2016. We can't go back to how things were, and I don't think that's what voters want in 2020 even if we could.

Voters rejected Hillary Clinton’s experience in 2016.

They also made Trump the R nominee, over a large field of more qualified opponents. He was clearly the "blow it up and burn it down" choice.

They rejected it by negative 3,000,000 votes.

Democrats could win by 6 million this November, and it won't matter if those votes are concentrated in blue states.

2016 was a change election and Clinton was the no-change candidate. If Biden wins the nod, Dems are betting that 2020 is a change-back election.

Trump was a candidate in a crowded Republican primary where most states were plurality "winner takes all" elections. Trump won a lot of states in the Republican primary without winning a majority of the votes. He was the Republican nominee, but as a result of a minority of votes within one party that doesn't represent a majority of voters.

As for the latter, that seems like a reason to choose a candidate with an appeal that more closely matches the electoral college, which probably means a candidate with more rust belt appeal. That feels like either Biden or Klobuchar.

[Fireball]

With the Iowa Caucuses less than two weeks away, I've rebuilt my Democratic delegate tracker for 2020.

Under the new rules, only pledged delegates can vote on the first ballot for the presidential nomination. A candidate who wins 1,990 pledged delegates will be the nominee. Pledged delegates are tracked on the first tab of the spreadsheet.

If no one gets 1,990 pledged delegates then there will be a second ballot at the Convention (yes, the fabled "contested convention" will finally have arrived!) in which unpledged "Super Delegates" can vote. A candidate will need 2,373 votes to win the nomination on a second (or later) ballot. The second tab of this spreadsheet attempt to track the unpledged delegates along with the pledged delegates won through the caucuses and primaries.

Finally, the third tab of the spreadsheet will track the popular vote.

If you find this useful, please bookmark the page, as I will be updating it as quickly as I can after each election night. And feel free to share.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Holman]

With the Iowa Caucuses less than two weeks away, I've rebuilt my Democratic delegate tracker for 2020.

Under the new rules, only pledged delegates can vote on the first ballot for the presidential nomination. A candidate who wins 1,990 pledged delegates will be the nominee. Pledged delegates are tracked on the first tab of the spreadsheet.

If no one gets 1,990 pledged delegates then there will be a second ballot at the Convention (yes, the fabled "contested convention" will finally have arrived!) in which unpledged "Super Delegates" can vote. A candidate will need 2,373 votes to win the nomination on a second (or later) ballot. The second tab of this spreadsheet attempt to track the unpledged delegates along with the pledged delegates won through the caucuses and primaries.

Finally, the third tab of the spreadsheet will track the popular vote.

If you find this useful, please bookmark the page, as I will be updating it as quickly as I can after each election night. And feel free to share.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Thank you!

[Kraken]

Bookmarked, thanks Fireball.

[Defiant]

If no one gets 1,990 pledged delegates then there will be a second ballot at the Convention (yes, the fabled "contested convention" will finally have arrived!) in which unpledged "Super Delegates" can vote.

Are pledged delegates still pledged to vote for whomever they're pledged for on the second ballot, or can they vote freely at that point?

[Fireball]

If no one gets 1,990 pledged delegates then there will be a second ballot at the Convention (yes, the fabled "contested convention" will finally have arrived!) in which unpledged "Super Delegates" can vote.

Are pledged delegates still pledged to vote for whomever they're pledged for on the second ballot, or can they vote freely at that point?

On the second ballot, everyone is technically a super delegate, but chances are most pledged delegates would stick with their candidate for at least a couple ballots.

[Defiant]

dp

[Defiant]

The results from this poll are troubling, IMO:

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. Five-percent (5%) Biden supporters say they will not vote for someone else as the Democratic nominee, while 9% say it would depend on who the nominee is. Among Sanders supporters, 16% will not vote for the nominee if Sanders doesn’t win, while 30% say it depends on the nominee. No Warren supporters say they will definitely not vote for the nominee if she does not win the nomination, but 10% say it will depend on who the nominee is. Forty-two percent (42%) of Yang supporters say they will not vote for anyone else as the Democratic nominee, while 9% say it depends on the nominee.

[Defiant]

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has released an analysis on the costs of the major candidate's health plans

As part of our US Budget Watch 2020 project, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has analyzed the plans of the four candidates polling the highest in the majority of national polls and polls in the first four primary states: Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

For each plan, we score the fiscal impact of coverage and other spending provisions, reductions in current and proposed health care costs, direct offsets proposed as part of their plans to expand coverage, and further offsets meant to finance remaining costs. We focus on federal fiscal impact rather than the effect on total national health expenditures.

Our estimates are rough and rounded, based on our best understanding of how campaign-level detail translates into specific policies, and subject to change as more details are made available.2 This report is for educational purposes and does not represent an endorsement of any candidate or any policy. It will be followed by further analysis of the candidates’ tax and spending proposals in the coming months.

[Jaymon]

Here is what I find frustrating. Now I know this is not a new frustration, but this is the only place to put it.

There are some candidates I like more than others, I can make a effort to decide which one best represents me, and attempt to get that person elected. Thats the promise of democracy I learned in elementary school.

But here we are in the real world, The state I live in will go all in for the democrat, regardless of which democrat ends up on top. Thats just how it is. I could use my vote for a third party, in an attempt to hopefully spread the field in a future election. But there are real, immediate, and significant consequences for a republican victory, so I will spend my vote for a democrat.

But I don't even get the luxury of choosing which democrat candidate best represents me. Please allow me to explain. My state will go all in with electoral college for whichever democrat is on top, regardless of which one it is. Thats just the reality of it. So the only way to make a difference is to support a candidate that will appeal to voters in one of the so called "swing states" such as Florida, Iowa, etc in an effort to garner votes there. So my only option for affecting the outcome of this election is to try and figure out which of the candidates is most likely to appeal to Florida Man, Retirees, and Midwesterners?, all of whom I know very little about and have no connection to.

That is why I am frustrated.

[Kraken]

So the only way to make a difference is to support a candidate that will appeal to voters in one of the so called "swing states" such as Florida, Iowa, etc in an effort to garner votes there. So my only option for affecting the outcome of this election is to try and figure out which of the candidates is most likely to appeal to Florida Man, Retirees, and Midwesterners?, all of whom I know very little about and have no connection to.

That's the establishment narrative. The progressive line is that we win by motivating a fraction of the huge number of potential voters who ordinarily stay home (in part because establishment candidates aren't inspiring). Who's right? It's not clear. There are far more not-voters than potential swing voters, but getting a not-voter to act is harder than convincing a wobbly voter. It would help if either side had a genuinely charismatic character...but they don't.

[Kurth]

Anyone catch The Daily episode from last week, ”The Swing Issue that Could Win a Swing State”?

Really interesting episode focused on the fracking issue in Pennsylvania.

Three Rust Belt swing states are critical to winning the presidency this year — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, there is one issue that could be decisive: fracking natural gas.

Opposition to fracking could be fatal for a candidate in the state, yet front-runners for the Democratic nomination have committed to banning fracking nationwide if elected. We went to western Pennsylvania, where fracking affects residents daily, to see whether electability in the state could really be reduced to this single issue.

They first interviewed a group of a half dozen or so union leaders whose members are all dependent on fracking to some extent (pipe fitters, welders, construction, software, etc.). None of them were Trump supporters, and, according to them, of their 60K+ members, maybe 5% are part of the MAGA crowd. They were all intensely against an immediate ban on fracking. When asked if they would support a democrat who is promising to ban fracking (Warren, Sanders), none of them would. When asked if they would advise their members to vote for Trump against a democrat who supported a fracking ban, most of them said they would, with one or two saying they couldn’t support Trump but would urge their members not to vote if the only option was Trump or a candidate in support of a fracking ban. Their parting message: “People will lobby their hobby and vote their job.”

The NYT crew then joined an environmentalist group at a local library and put the same questions to them. This group was pretty out there on the left-leaning spectrum with slogans like “Fracking is rape” being thrown around. None of them would support a centrist democrat not in favor of a fracking ban, and they had particular disdain for Biden and Buttigieg. A few commented that if a centrist democrat gets the nomination, they will not campaign for them or volunteer in any way. That said, when asked what they’d do if it comes down to Trump and a centrist democrat, every one of them said they’d vote and they’d vote for the centrist democrat. One of them summed it up by saying that he’s an environmental voter, and he’ll always case the vote that is better for the environment, and there’s just no question that a vote for a centrist democrat over Trump is better for the environment, even if it’s not the optimal candidate.

After hearing this podcast, I’m even more certain that if the dems nominate Sanders or Warren (especially Sanders), they are toast.

[Smoove_B]

Hadn't seen that about fracking. Quite interesting, thanks.

[LordMortis]

Trump is “his payback.”

I want to hear more on this. Payback for what? What in what? Seriously. If that can't be hashed out, nothing can, can it?

Edit:

Wait, there was a post I quoted. Where'd it go?

[Isgrimnur]

Even if someone attempted it at the federal level, it's going to be tied up in court for a while.

NPR

New Texas Law Makes Local Fracking Bans Illegal

Legislation was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott after the city of Denton voted to restrict fracking.

[Kurth]

Even if someone attempted it at the federal level, it's going to be tied up in court for a while.

NPR

New Texas Law Makes Local Fracking Bans Illegal

Legislation was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott after the city of Denton voted to restrict fracking.

That's not an argument that's going to assuage the union members who see a fracking ban as a direct ticket to the unemployment line.

Also, that sounds an awful lot like an argument we heard a while ago that said we shouldn't be that worried about Trump because he won't be able to follow through on any of his campaign promises.

[Isgrimnur]

It's not. It's more of an aside about the issue than the voter feelings. Chalk it up as my odd sidetrack.

[Archinerd]

John Delany is out.

[Kraken]

John Delany is out.

I had forgotten that he was in.

[El Guapo]

So much for Delanemania.

[Archinerd]

John Delany is out.

I had forgotten that he was in.

Maybe he forgot too?
You know when you find a dry cleaning reciept in your pocket and realize you never picked up that shirt you wore to a wedding last summer? Could be like that.

[Defiant]

[Isgrimnur]

Won't you please donate to help the sufferers of McConnell Mouth today?

[Holman]

The DNC has changed the donor thresholds in a way that allows Michael Bloomberg to attend the next debate.

At first it felt like giving the millionaire an unfair special exemption, but it's now coming out that some other candidates supported the change.

Why? Because debates are tough and can damage a campaign. Bloomberg was essentially buying his way into the primaries with ads while never having to openly confront any tough questions. Including him actually helps prevent him from just buying his spot on the ballot.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, he definitely has more to lose at a debate when he needs to respond to and interact with the others there (not sarcasm). I am also quite curious to see his commercial air tomorrow during the Superbowl.

[Defiant]

It only takes effect in the 9th debate, not the next debate (which already had rules in place earlier)

And yeah, it seems silly to have a candidate getting 12% in polls not be in debates where he can get some vetting, although I think they should have always had a "If you're doing a hell of a lot better than other candidates in the polling, you should be included" alternate way of getting into the debates. The donor requirement made more sense when you're using it as a tiebreaker for a ton of candidates in the 1-3% range.

[Holman]

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/122375 ... 54208?s=20

This thread is fresh and ongoing, but I assume it will continue to cover all of the reasonable candidates.

[Kraken]

Reading all three of those essays (they did Biden, too) made me feel better about each one.