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

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:51 pm

Kraken wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:30 pm It's a shame he chose not to run in 2016, because he'd have outperformed Hillary (and probably Bernie) with the Obama glow still bright and his senescence less evident...

another item to add to the list of Biden tragedies. he's had a few of them

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:19 pm

If you are watching major media coverage, it's still all horse race and they are chasing the shiny object. Take the point about both states being non-representative. That is vital because it is certainly distorting the contest and what's even more striking to me is that we'll have two contests pop out 3 different 'front runners' candidates from them. If it was just Buttigieg and Sanders again then you have that clear split. With Klobuchar potentially in the mix this becomes a bigger split with 2 moderates fighting for whatever the portion of the pie they capture as 'moderates'. If you are Sanders, you have to feel pretty good about that.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:24 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:01 pm Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.

I'm not sure where you're seeing that Biden is behind in Iowa (aka SC). He's lead has certainly shrunk, but he's still leading by a decent margin according to fivethirtyeight.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:18 pm

Yang's out. It was only a matter of time. And Bennet. Who I didn't even realize was still in the race.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:00 pm

Tulsi Gabbard's campaign has announced that she's not dropping out even though her performance has been embarrassingly shitty [paraphrase] in every vote so far.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:09 pm

Russia has deep pockets...eh...well maybe not so much...but they have something on her. In other Russian agent news...good lord, he is vile.

https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/12 ... 2628510720

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:16 pm

I liked Yang. He was never going to be president, obviously, but he added value to the conversation. I hope he'll have a place in the new administration, if the good guys win.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:48 pm

CNN

Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor who in November made a late entrance into the Democratic 2020 race, ended his campaign on Wednesday, according to a statement provided to CNN.
...
The announcement comes after Patrick, by getting less than 1,300 votes, turned in a disappointing performance on Tuesday night in New Hampshire, his neighboring state.
...
Patrick had skipped the Iowa caucuses and pinned his hopes on stronger-than-expected performances in New Hampshire and South Carolina as the Democratic field winnowed.
...
Patrick's campaign underscored the difficulty of jumping into a presidential race months after other campaigns had begun raising money, hiring staffers, recruiting volunteers and developing policy platforms.

He'd hired some staffers, including campaign manager Abe Rakov, who had just departed former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke's campaign after O'Rourke withdrew from the race.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:03 pm

hitbyambulance wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:51 pm
Kraken wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:30 pm It's a shame he chose not to run in 2016, because he'd have outperformed Hillary (and probably Bernie) with the Obama glow still bright and his senescence less evident...
another item to add to the list of Biden tragedies. he's had a few of them

Intuitively it seems like the most likely outcome of a Biden candidacy in 2016 is that Sanders would have had a much easier route to the nomination. Insofar as that likely would have caused a split in the 'moderate' lane and in establishment support.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:05 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:24 pm
El Guapo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:01 pm Biden was ahead in South Carolina in polling by double digits before Iowa. Now he's behind in Iowa. I would say that that's a pretty sharp link indicating that the Iowa results are a primary cause of his campaign faltering. Especially since Biden's polling didn't move much in response to the debates.
I'm not sure where you're seeing that Biden is behind in Iowa (aka SC). He's lead has certainly shrunk, but he's still leading by a decent margin according to fivethirtyeight.

Oh, ok - I think I was looking at the 538 forecasting model, which is now predicting that Sanders will win SC. Presumably it's expecting that the Iowa results (and resulting media coverage) will continue to swing the race away from Biden (and at least somewhat towards Sanders), which should only be compounded by the NH results.

BUT, we'll see what actually materializes. Plus there's NV in between, and it sounds like polling in NV is sparse.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:32 pm

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/statu ... 1140733967

Seems like it could be significant. I suspect Biden's best shot at the nomination at this point would be to use his skepticism of MFA to get the Nevada unions on his side, leverage that to a big win in NV, use that to get momentum into SC (which is a better state for his coalition), and use that to build up a head of steam going into Super Tuesday.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:27 pm

Setting aside ideological differences with Sanders and the fact that I think he comes across as a curmudgeonly old grouch, this NH data from the NYT highlights why I think he's a disastrous nominee:

Sanders does really well with young (18-29) voters who self-identify as "Very Liberal," but outside of those groups, he's weak. Do we really want to pin our hopes of avoiding four more years of Trump on that demographic? I feel like there's maybe some data out there that suggests that young, very liberal voters tend to not be the most dependable voting bloc.

Contrast Bernie, here, with Buttigieg, who is much more consistent in drawing his support across age groups and ideological identities.

Sanders is not the answer.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:30 pm

bigimg tags, please.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:41 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:27 pm

Sanders does really well with young (18-29) voters who self-identify as "Very Liberal,"

Young people are idealist. Also, young people will gladly ride their idealism to the grave without every looking at the bigger picture. So either Sanders is the candidate, or a significant portion of his voters 'rebel' against the system again.

That is how you get Trumps.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:44 pm

I'm having a hard time parsing that information. First to believe that 18-29 year olds identify with Sanders and second, that 18-29 year olds are going to vote in enough numbers nationwide to make a difference in November. Everything is crazy.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:04 pm

I think it's nuts to elect someone that is 78 years old and had a heart attack recently. I'm sure Trump won't focus on that. Seriously the majority of the people running and captain orange are 70+. The boomers need to let go... This is ridiculous.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:11 pm

After electing Obama, I never figured we'd go back to electing old white men. Boy howdy did I misread that one.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:42 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:27 pmSanders does really well with young (18-29) voters who self-identify as "Very Liberal," but outside of those groups, he's weak. Do we really want to pin our hopes of avoiding four more years of Trump on that demographic? I feel like there's maybe some data out there that suggests that young, very liberal voters tend to not be the most dependable voting bloc.

Contrast Bernie, here, with Buttigieg, who is much more consistent in drawing his support across age groups and ideological identities.

Sanders is not the answer.

From what I've seen so far, Sanders is the only one who motivates people, who excites their voters. He even was a better motivator than Hilary last time. He just has IT, whatever it is. A lot of people voted for her because she was not Trump, not because they liked her. Sanders' voters like him and want to vote for him regardless of who he is running against.

So for me the question is more like: Do we really want to pin our hopes on someone with broader appeal, even if they are unable to motivate voters? Or do we have a better shot backing the one person who has a rabid following?

It's true his base is not known for actually showing up to vote in large numbers, but that can be fixed. The Sanders campaign just needs to find a way to 'go viral' and become the hipster thing to support and all kinds of previously uninvolved young people will take interest in it. What kind of strategy is going to get older voters out there to vote when they feel the establishment candidates are all lacking something? I'd hate to see the election lost due to disenchanted voters staying home.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:47 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:11 pm After electing Obama, I never figured we'd go back to electing old white men. Boy howdy did I misread that one.

Are you aware of how many old white men we have in this country?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:50 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:47 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:11 pm After electing Obama, I never figured we'd go back to electing old white men. Boy howdy did I misread that one.
Are you aware of how many old white men we have in this country?

And at least half of them are in this primary race.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:03 pm
hitbyambulance wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:51 pm
Kraken wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:30 pm It's a shame he chose not to run in 2016, because he'd have outperformed Hillary (and probably Bernie) with the Obama glow still bright and his senescence less evident...
another item to add to the list of Biden tragedies. he's had a few of them
Intuitively it seems like the most likely outcome of a Biden candidacy in 2016 is that Sanders would have had a much easier route to the nomination. Insofar as that likely would have caused a split in the 'moderate' lane and in establishment support.

Didn't Hillary hold off on announcing until Biden made up his mind? Or am I remembering that wrong?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:26 pm

It's a shame he chose not to run in 2016, because he'd have outperformed Hillary (and probably Bernie) with the Obama glow still bright and his senescence less evident...

This isn't clear to me. It's worth pointing out that Clinton's approval rating was higher than Biden's right before the campaign cycle started (in fact, they were kind of mirror images, with Clinton's going down (as the campaigning went on) while his went up.

Intuitively it seems like the most likely outcome of a Biden candidacy in 2016 is that Sanders would have had a much easier route to the nomination. Insofar as that likely would have caused a split in the 'moderate' lane and in establishment support.

I don't agree. The signs suggested that about half of Sander's support was really anti-Hillary sentiment than pro-Sanders sentiment, and I think much of that would have gone to Biden (as a more credible candidate).

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:20 pm

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 9114251266

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:49 pm

Defiant wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:20 pm https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 9114251266

Isn't this likely comparing Pete/Amy areas to Hillary 2016 while comparing Sanders areas to Sanders 2016?

Sanders 2016 won NH 60% to 38%. His 2016 turnout in his areas was already through the roof.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm

Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:43 pm

Eventually, he's going to have to address the rumor that his husband is gay.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:09 am

pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).

They're also starting up a Swift Boat campaign against him, suggesting that he didn't "really" serve since he was never a front-line grunt.

Pretty disgusting.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:23 am

Holman wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:09 am
pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).
They're also starting up a Swift Boat campaign against him, suggesting that he didn't "really" serve since he was never a front-line grunt.

Pretty disgusting.

I don't get how that plays. If you think service is somehow tarnished if you didn't see combat, how do you reconcile voting in a CinC that dodged the draft and makes light of POWs? To me, that just means "swiftboating" is an excuse of convenience.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:30 am

LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:23 am
Holman wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:09 am
pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).
They're also starting up a Swift Boat campaign against him, suggesting that he didn't "really" serve since he was never a front-line grunt.

Pretty disgusting.
I don't get how that plays. If you think service is somehow tarnished if you didn't see combat, how do you reconcile voting in a CinC that dodged the draft and makes light of POWs? To me, that just means "swiftboating" is an excuse of convenience.

It's adorable that you think that conservative media outlets have to worry about reconciling inconsistent arguments or facts.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:35 am

El Guapo wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:30 am
LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:23 am
Holman wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:09 am
pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).
They're also starting up a Swift Boat campaign against him, suggesting that he didn't "really" serve since he was never a front-line grunt.

Pretty disgusting.
I don't get how that plays. If you think service is somehow tarnished if you didn't see combat, how do you reconcile voting in a CinC that dodged the draft and makes light of POWs? To me, that just means "swiftboating" is an excuse of convenience.
It's adorable that you think that conservative media outlets have to worry about reconciling inconsistent arguments or facts.

Also missing is the cause->effect chain here. The conservative news tells them what to get outraged about. They then get all mobbed up and attack everything around them. It inevitably gets covered by the wider media and pollutes the discourse. There is nothing about facts involved. The skeleton of the story is all that matters so that there is something to reference but the body of the facts will be exaggerated and distorted to whatever end is needed.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:56 am

pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).

I heard he said something about how would parents explain to their children Buttigieg kissing his husband, and I was astounded. Maybe when I was a kid that would have been a big thing, but I can assure you that my kids (9, 5, and 5) wouldn't think twice about it. It's everywhere in the culture today, and I' have to think that in all but the deepest red parts of America most kids wouldn't need to have anything explained to them. They're response may be something like, "Those dudes are going to Hell!", but they'd know what was going on.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:06 pm

LordMortis wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:23 am
Holman wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:09 am
pr0ner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Right wing media has started to pick up the attacks on Buttigieg's sexuality, with Rush Limbaugh being the most prevalent member of the media going after him today (Gorka did too, but, ugh).
They're also starting up a Swift Boat campaign against him, suggesting that he didn't "really" serve since he was never a front-line grunt.

Pretty disgusting.
I don't get how that plays. If you think service is somehow tarnished if you didn't see combat, how do you reconcile voting in a CinC that dodged the draft and makes light of POWs? To me, that just means "swiftboating" is an excuse of convenience.

Yup. It's a way of trying to make his service seem lightweight, perhaps even... feminine. (I think we know where they're going with this.)

But the fact is that you don't have to be infantry to face danger in our current wars. Pete was on Afghanistan roads a lot, and those roads featured IEDs and every other threat.

Archinerd · Post by **Archinerd** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:31 pm

I don't think Mayor Pete being Gay is really a factor.
Most of the people that think this is a real issue are already voting for Trump.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:53 pm

https://www.twitter.com/LisPower1/statu ... 5937145863

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:57 pm

He's doubling down:

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:57 pm

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:07 pm

I had to look up who Ben Ferguson is. Is he talking to anyone who isn't already voting for Trump anyway? Are any "undecideds" looking to him for advice?

OtOH, without context, I suppose I get your point about media. Why does CNN care what he thinks and what sort of stage are they giving him? I don't know the answer to that. The only reason I know he exists is because you are pointing CNN at me.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:08 pm

CNN pays him to come on the air and give those opinions.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:11 pm

Is it too soon to speculate over a Presidential Medal of Freedom quid pro quo for going after Mayor Pete? I mean, it's not like it matters - but what a message this sends.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:20 pm

Rush needs no quid pro quo and he'd turn on the president in a heartbeat if he smelled blood in the water. Trump has a ton sycophants Rush isn't one of them. He is one of the few who is Trump's equal. Honestly, if you could get to Rush' ego, he would be someone who could damage Trump. I dunno about bring him down, but he could sew seeds of post event "I told you so" fabrications that could peel off some of cult of "I'm concerned but..."