The 2020 Presidential campaign.

lol Chris Matthews

The Pantry wrote:Didn't take any strategists to make Hillary look like the devil. She did that all on her own.

Yes completely on her own. No help at all, comrade.

Welp time to accept that Trump is going to have a cake walk to his second term.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Republicans are going to take all those strategist that made Hillary Clinton to be the devil and trashed Hunter Biden and have a field day on Bernie Sanders. His three houses in Vermont, his wealth and his wife are going to be the focus of so many attacks.

I believe it's house in DC, house in Vermont, summer home/cottage in Vermont. And I think he became a millionaire in his 60s or 70s, not exactly Gordon Gecko.

Heh, you think people are going to care where they are? You should review the swift boat veterans attacks and Hunter Biden attacks. Repubs are masters at drawing up fear and anger. Bernie is going to be so easy.

Meh, look at the early primaries in 2008. Obama won Iowa and John Edward's and Hillary were virtually tied for second. Then Hillary won NH and Nevada.

Short of finding an Obama or Bill Clinton that was going to come out of nowhere and find a connection with people, this election is always going to be a referendum on Trump, and less about his opponent's politics. It is about how much of the middle has an anti-Trump sentiment versus how many still see him as an outsider shaking things up.

A benefit of Bernie is that he's the only Dem that can somewhat tap into that feeling of wanting an outsider to shake things up. More than 20% of Bernie voters in 2016 voted for Hillary, with 12% actually voting for Trump. In the deciding states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the number of Bernie voters that voted for Trump exceeded his margin of victory.

That doesn't mean that Bernie can win (it only addresses Bernie voters), but he can tap into the "Washington needs a shakeup" part of Trump voters.

MiamiSpartan wrote:Meh, look at the early primaries in 2008. Obama won Iowa and John Edward's and Hillary were virtually tied for second. Then Hillary won NH and Nevada.

Short of finding an Obama or Bill Clinton that was going to come out of nowhere and find a connection with people, this election is always going to be a referendum on Trump, and less about his opponent's politics. It is about how much of the middle has an anti-Trump sentiment versus how many still see him as an outsider shaking things up.

A benefit of Bernie is that he's the only Dem that can somewhat tap into that feeling of wanting an outsider to shake things up. More than 20% of Bernie voters in 2016 voted for Hillary, with 12% actually voting for Trump. In the deciding states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the number of Bernie voters that voted for Trump exceeded his margin of victory.

That doesn't mean that Bernie can win (it only addresses Bernie voters), but he can tap into the "Washington needs a shakeup" part of Trump voters.

I hope you’re right but I fear the worst. I don’t see the “I’m an unhappy Republican or Trump Dem” voting for Bernie Sanders. Not a chance. They’ll put up with four more years of Trump before an avowed socialist. I kinda liked it to SCum athletics. For the most part I don’t hate their team. It’s their fan base that is loathsome. Enter Bernie Bro’s and gals....I cannot watch his spokeswoman. She is always one tough relevant question away from going in all out attack and anger mode. Can’t stand listening to her.

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Meh, look at the early primaries in 2008. Obama won Iowa and John Edward's and Hillary were virtually tied for second. Then Hillary won NH and Nevada.

Short of finding an Obama or Bill Clinton that was going to come out of nowhere and find a connection with people, this election is always going to be a referendum on Trump, and less about his opponent's politics. It is about how much of the middle has an anti-Trump sentiment versus how many still see him as an outsider shaking things up.

A benefit of Bernie is that he's the only Dem that can somewhat tap into that feeling of wanting an outsider to shake things up. More than 20% of Bernie voters in 2016 voted for Hillary, with 12% actually voting for Trump. In the deciding states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the number of Bernie voters that voted for Trump exceeded his margin of victory.

That doesn't mean that Bernie can win (it only addresses Bernie voters), but he can tap into the "Washington needs a shakeup" part of Trump voters.

I hope you’re right but I fear the worst. I don’t see the “I’m an unhappy Republican or Trump Dem” voting for Bernie Sanders. Not a chance. They’ll put up with four more years of Trump before an avowed socialist. I kinda liked it to SCum athletics. For the most part I don’t hate their team. It’s their fan base that is loathsome. Enter Bernie Bro’s and gals....I cannot watch his spokeswoman. She is always one tough relevant question away from going in all out attack and anger mode. Can’t stand listening to her.

I can’t stand Shaun King.

It's not the 1990s anymore. "Running to the center" is an outdated philosophy. Look at 2016 and 2004. Obama marketed himself as a change candidate in 2008, not a moderate. I've said it before, I think Bernie makes up for the lack of a Republican crossover vote (which would be small anyways, Trump is popular among Republicans) with turning out his base, getting independents, and bringing former non-voters into the process. He's also the most popular among Latinos and second most popular (for now) among blacks.

Should have bookmarked the article. If found I’ll post the link.

Her premise is the middle 20% that won pre-2016 elections has shrunk to the point it’s not the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed as key to winning an election.

She thinks the Democrats make more gains in the House and pick up seats in the Senate and whoever the Democrats nominate will be more palatable than the current President.

At this point I think we will see the SCOTUS make some decisions that favor Trump like not restoring voting rights to felons in FL and redrawing Congressional districts after 2020 that help Trump.

GRR Spartan wrote:Should have bookmarked the article.  If found I’ll post the link.

Her premise is the middle 20% that won pre-2016 elections has shrunk to the point it’s not the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed as key to winning an election.

She thinks the Democrats make more gains in the House and pick up seats in the Senate and whoever the Democrats nominate will be more palatable than the current President.

At this point I think we will see the SCOTUS make some decisions that favor Trump like not restoring voting rights to felons in FL and redrawing Congressional districts after 2020  that help Trump.

Her name is Rachel Bitecofer. She is a professor at Christopher Newport University in Virginia.

I believe, but I am not entirely sure, that her forecasting places an emphasis on a sizeable number of people moving in and out of the electorate for a given election, whereas most models tend to make rather consistent assumptions about the size of the electorate across elections. She was dead on forecasting the 2018 mid-terms.

THX Turtleneck

Here is the link

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/does-it-really-matter-who-the-democratic-nominee-is

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Meh, look at the early primaries in 2008. Obama won Iowa and John Edward's and Hillary were virtually tied for second. Then Hillary won NH and Nevada.

Short of finding an Obama or Bill Clinton that was going to come out of nowhere and find a connection with people, this election is always going to be a referendum on Trump, and less about his opponent's politics. It is about how much of the middle has an anti-Trump sentiment versus how many still see him as an outsider shaking things up.

A benefit of Bernie is that he's the only Dem that can somewhat tap into that feeling of wanting an outsider to shake things up. More than 20% of Bernie voters in 2016 voted for Hillary, with 12% actually voting for Trump. In the deciding states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the number of Bernie voters that voted for Trump exceeded his margin of victory.

That doesn't mean that Bernie can win (it only addresses Bernie voters), but he can tap into the "Washington needs a shakeup" part of Trump voters.

I hope you’re right but I fear the worst. I don’t see the “I’m an unhappy Republican or Trump Dem” voting for Bernie Sanders. Not a chance. They’ll put up with four more years of Trump before an avowed socialist. I kinda liked it to SCum athletics. For the most part I don’t hate their team. It’s their fan base that is loathsome. Enter Bernie Bro’s and gals....I cannot watch his spokeswoman. She is always one tough relevant question away from going in all out attack and anger mode. Can’t stand listening to her.

If you agree with a candidate on the issues, but decide not to vote for that candidate because some of his supporters tweet mean things sometimes, you are an unreasonable moron.

This is a good article that will send you down a rabbit hole if you’re so inclined to think about the ramifications of a contested convention.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/bernie-sanders-george-mcgovern/606883/

Yang calls on someone to 'pull an Andrew Yang' and bow out of 2020 race

Cameron wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

I hope you’re right but I fear the worst. I don’t see the “I’m an unhappy Republican or Trump Dem” voting for Bernie Sanders. Not a chance. They’ll put up with four more years of Trump before an avowed socialist. I kinda liked it to SCum athletics. For the most part I don’t hate their team. It’s their fan base that is loathsome. Enter Bernie Bro’s and gals....I cannot watch his spokeswoman. She is always one tough relevant question away from going in all out attack and anger mode. Can’t stand listening to her.

If you agree with a candidate on the issues, but decide not to vote for that candidate because some of his supporters tweet mean things sometimes, you are an unreasonable moron.

My point is that there are people out there that probably do a agree with Trump on many issues but just can’t take him personally or morally and as a decent human. Those votes may be ripe for the picking.

Sooooo we’re gonna run an avowed socialist with free this and that.

Good luck.

If ever there was a time for a centerist it’s now.

kingstonlake wrote:

Cameron wrote:

If you agree with a candidate on the issues, but decide not to vote for that candidate because some of his supporters tweet mean things sometimes, you are an unreasonable moron.

My point is that there are people out there that probably do a agree with Trump on many issues but just can’t take him personally or morally and as a decent human. Those votes may be ripe for the picking.

Sooooo we’re gonna run an avowed socialist with free this and that.

Good luck.

If ever there was a time for a centerist it’s now.

I completely disagree. We are in an anti-establishment era. This is for good reason too, for the reasons Bernie continually points out related to extreme wealth inequality which the politicians have been cool with for the last few decades. I can't see enough excitement surrounding a Bloomberg or Biden general election campaign.

Throwing out the word socialist won't be enough IMO. Republicans do that to whoever is the nominee. They called Obama a socialist/marxist most of his presidency when he ran the country as a centrist.

Maybe there never was a time for one then.

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

My point is that there are people out there that probably do a agree with Trump on many issues but just can’t take him personally or morally and as a decent human. Those votes may be ripe for the picking.

Sooooo we’re gonna run an avowed socialist with free this and that.

Good luck.

If ever there was a time for a centerist it’s now.

I completely disagree. We are in an anti-establishment era. This is for good reason too, for the reasons Bernie continually points out related to extreme wealth inequality which the politicians have been cool with for the last few decades. I can't see enough excitement surrounding a Bloomberg or Biden general election campaign.

Throwing out the word socialist won't be enough IMO. Republicans do that to whoever is the nominee. They called Obama a socialist/marxist most of his presidency when he ran the country as a centrist.

I hope you’re right. But if we are both honest with ourselves what you do in a voting both and what you say outside of one can be two completely different things. I agree that there are winds of change building. I’m just not convinced it strong enough to fill the sails of America in general. I mean for Christ sakes. A racist sex assault perpetrator who’s a shitty business man with a bad TV show got elected. I’m not convinced America is all of a sudden gonna realize their mistake and make a morally correct choice.

That’s exactly the point. A successful candidate creates a story around themselves. Obama did and Bernie has. Trump did. None of the other candidates are creating a compelling narrative. Pete, a little. I also happen to agree mostly with Sanders’ worldview, but others that are hesitant may just follow the story. Like people did with trump. Who then of course after claiming to be with the people and against Wall Street went exactly the opposite way.

I wanted Biden. But I’m good if Bernie wins. Am I confident he can beat Trump? No, but I’ve seen a momentum train before so who knows.

Rocinante wrote:That’s exactly the point. A successful candidate creates a story around themselves. Obama did and Bernie has. Trump did. None of the other candidates are creating a compelling narrative. Pete, a little. I also happen to agree mostly with Sanders’ worldview, but others that are hesitant may just follow the story. Like people did with trump. Who then of course after claiming to be with the people and against Wall Street went exactly the opposite way.

Bernies story is the same one as four years ago. So is the story with his supporters. It’s them and if not punish everyone.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Maybe there never was a time for one then.

This country has a ton more centrists than Republicans or Democrats. You can't win the election without winning that group.

But I still don't think this election is won or lost on the issues, so socialist, fascist, or centrist, it is going to come down to a referendum on Trump himself. Re-election bids are typically that to an extent, but Trump is such a big personality that the stuff he says/how he acts seems to really overshadow the issues.

kingstonlake wrote:

Rocinante wrote:That’s exactly the point. A successful candidate creates a story around themselves. Obama did and Bernie has. Trump did. None of the other candidates are creating a compelling narrative. Pete, a little. I also happen to agree mostly with Sanders’ worldview, but others that are hesitant may just follow the story. Like people did with trump. Who then of course after claiming to be with the people and against Wall Street went exactly the opposite way.

Bernies story is the same one as four years ago. So is the story with his supporters. It’s them and if not punish everyone.

That’s a bullshit false narrative that the other candidates and scared people are pushing.

MiamiSpartan wrote:This country has a ton more centrists than Republicans or Democrats. You can't win the election without winning that group.

But I still don't think this election is won or lost on the issues, so socialist, fascist, or centrist, it is going to come down to a referendum on Trump himself. Re-election bids are typically that to an extent, but Trump is such a big personality that the stuff he says/how he acts seems to really overshadow the issues.

Really? Then explain to me how Trump got elected.

Sanders/Yang 2020

Rocinante wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:This country has a ton more centrists than Republicans or Democrats. You can't win the election without winning that group.

But I still don't think this election is won or lost on the issues, so socialist, fascist, or centrist, it is going to come down to a referendum on Trump himself. Re-election bids are typically that to an extent, but Trump is such a big personality that the stuff he says/how he acts seems to really overshadow the issues.

Really? Then explain to me how Trump got elected.

Because he won the middle?

Cameron wrote:Sanders/Yang 2020

I’d like to see an established politician that can rally votes to bernies causes. Or one that didn’t play the traditional role but was tasked with running some shit. Like Cheney but not evil.

Cameron wrote:Sanders/Yang 2020

Bernie said he's going female a while back on a perspective VP choice.

MiamiSpartan wrote:This country has a ton more centrists than Republicans or Democrats. You can't win the election without winning that group.

But I still don't think this election is won or lost on the issues, so socialist, fascist, or centrist, it is going to come down to a referendum on Trump himself. Re-election bids are typically that to an extent, but Trump is such a big personality that the stuff he says/how he acts seems to really overshadow the issues.

This country has more independents and non-voters than Reps/Dems. That doesn't necessarily equate to centrism though.

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

Cameron wrote:Sanders/Yang 2020

Bernie said he's going female a while back on a perspective VP choice.

Until the little spat, I always thought Warren and Bernie may team up.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

Bernie said he's going female a while back on a perspective VP choice.

Until the little spat, I always thought Warren and Bernie may team up.

I kinda thought so, too.

My thinking now is more along the lines of he ought to pick someone younger than 70 for his running mate.

Politico: Buttigieg claims inconsistencies in Nevada results

Is it just me, or does Pete seem like kind of a weasel?

There’s at least two of us that think so.

Why are none of you on the Bloomberg train?

The Pantry wrote:Why are none of you on the Bloomberg train?

If he wins the nomination I will have no problem voting for him. I thought he was a really good mayor.

The Pantry wrote:Why are none of you on the Bloomberg train?

To name a few:

Stop and frisk
Pro Iraq War
Against MFA
Using $$$$ to change the debate rules and buy his way onto the stage

The Pantry wrote:Why are none of you on the Bloomberg train?

The fact that he's buying his way into this thing is exactly what is wrong. (I love Warren's proposal to clean up Washington)

That said, id vote for him all day over cocksucker.

Seems like a winner to me.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1231655097094021120?s=21

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:This country has a ton more centrists than Republicans or Democrats. You can't win the election without winning that group.

But I still don't think this election is won or lost on the issues, so socialist, fascist, or centrist, it is going to come down to a referendum on Trump himself. Re-election bids are typically that to an extent, but Trump is such a big personality that the stuff he says/how he acts seems to really overshadow the issues.

This country has more independents and non-voters than Reps/Dems. That doesn't necessarily equate to centrism though.

The extremes to the right and left of the main parties are pretty small numbers, so yes, the vast majority if non-Dems/Pubs are centrist. If course there are varying degrees of centrism, but the point remains that the Democrat or Republican base is not going to win you an election on their own. The middle is up for grabs and tips every election. I suppose you can always point to other factors like Democrat turnout in 2016, but if you win the middle then you can sustain fluctuations like that.