US Elections 2020

[Stavros]

Here is another Bye Bye Bernie article, one from Martin O'Malley who points to Sanders' record as a 'do nothing' Independent, plus-

“Here’s a guy who has been a kind of stalwart of the National Rifle Association, a man who said immigrants steal our jobs right up until he ran for president, a guy who said the sound of John Kennedy’s voice made him nauseous.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...martin-omalley

The Democrats need a candidate with a positive vision for the US over the next 10 years, someone who can persuade people that there is a better way to treat citizens and the environment, above all someone who offers a different tone to the constant trashing and negative copy of the incumbent, who should be running on his record rather than other peope's. Here is the problem: the US is sliding into recession, so that by November, the braying about job creation and economic success might be replaced by the blame game, with, one assumes, Obama the fall guy for anything that goes wrong.
This article looks at the negative trends in the US economy-
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9310056.html

[blackchubby38]

I appreciate your posts but have sometimes had the same question. You often show you're a reasonable person, which is good and important, but then I wonder what in the Democratic program is indispensable to you. At what point would a concession by Democrats to win votes change the character of the party so much that we're giving up the things we're fighting for? I ask myself the same question because the Democratic party winning is so important to me but I want to know what we win.

I also think the issues Democrats run on need to be calibrated so that we're creating an impact but also pulling away the right slice of the voters to win elections. If you don't mind me asking, who do you like so far? If it's Biden I will agree that what he offers is significantly different from what Trump offers, even if it isn't bold or inspiring.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
A woman's right to choose.
Making sure that everyone receives equal protection under the law when it comes to employment, education, and housing.

But I think the most important issue in this election is the make up of the Supreme Court. If Trump wins re-election, he most likely gets to nominate another judge. If that happens, everything the Democrats have fought for the past 50 years can be in jeopardy.

As of right now, I leaning towards Biden, followed by Buttigieg, and Klobuchar.

[blackchubby38]

Okay, but if now is not the right time to mention gun control, when will be the right time? If it's too risky to raise now, won't it also be too risky at any point in the future, as there's always another election coming? Your argument sounds like a recipe for perpetual inaction. Supposing Democrats won the Presidency and both houses after running quiet on gun control. Wouldn't you then be telling us that they shouldn't try to legislate because there would be too much risk of a backlash?

Nope. Because as Obama once said and as we are unfortunately learning right now, "Elections having consequences". When they have control over those three houses, then Democrats should have opportunity to enact gun control legislation.

[filghy2]

Nope. Because as Obama once said and as we are unfortunately learning right now, "Elections having consequences". When they have control over those three houses, then Democrats should have opportunity to enact gun control legislation.

The problem is that you need to win more than one election to make changes stick. Look at what's happened with Obamacare - even if the other side is unable to repeal the legislation there are many ways to undermine it through legal challenges or administrative action/inaction.

I just don't see how being deceptive about your real intentions can be a viable political strategy in the long term. Voters tend to react badly if they feel they were deceived. I'm not even sure it works in the short term. Voters who care enough about guns to change their vote are unlikely to forget that Democrats favoured gun controls in the past - and the other side will certainly be reminding them. I also don't see how you can feed a different message to your own base without others knowing about it.

I could possibly understand your argument if Trump was just a one-off aberration and things will return to normal once he's gone. But I think he's really a product of deeper trends that have been building for some time. The Republican Party has been taken over completely by Trumpism and it's not going to go back to normal even if he loses this year.

[broncofan]

The problem is that you need to win more than one election to make changes stick. Look at what's happened with Obamacare - even if the other side is unable to repeal the legislation there are many ways to undermine it through legal challenges or administrative action/inaction.

The main things the President does that are permanent is appoint Justices and start wars. The types of things he's doing at our border also has permanent consequences. Other battles might take generations to win and might be forced through with a majority, but can be undone in the next legislative cycle. I agree with you about the guns though. Republican voters already know we want gun control and anything said directly to them is going to be better than having it filtered through the NRA as "THEY WANNA TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!!!".

The problem with Biden is that we have reached a stage in this country where people are prepared for more than the health care and tax plan he provides.Not a good thread to be too specific maybe but he could be much more progressive on this issue even without a wealth tax. I understand your point that if you don't offer anything excited and run simply on not being Trump you can't excite the masses. Not sure what the answer is...

Stavros, I agree that's the type of person we need. But who among the current field is it? The Iowa Caucus is today and it will be won by either Bernie or Joe!!

[Stavros]

I was going to write something profound, but then I opened up the papers. I have no idea what happened in Iowa last night, I don't know who does, but it is one of those moments that makes me wonder what has happened to the US political system. Purges, Suppression, Gerrymandering....and at the dawn of the digital election, digitals that don't work? hmmmm….has this been a good night for Bloomberg?
Explanations, please, America.

[filghy2]

It's a bit murky, but it looks like the usual story about senior officials buying a technical solution they didn't understand, the technology not being tested sufficiently, and people not being adequately trained in how to use it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...lection-110710

[broncofan]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

The latest odds from 538 are in the upper right hand corner. I know they've been wrong a lot but so is everyone else and I think they try to do an honest, professional job so I look at their poll aggregation once in a while.

They have Bernie as the favorite. What's interesting is that the people (or personalities) seem to matter a lot because Bernie and Warren seem most similar policy wise but a lot of people in each camp don't seem to rate the other as second best from a poll I saw.

A few prominent Bernie Sanders supporters have said they will not vote for anyone but Bernie. One even said to paraphrase, if everyone knows that we will only vote for Bernie, and their primary motivation is to beat Trump, then the responsible move is for them to support Bernie in the primary. I'm not going to link the parties saying this on large platforms with lots of support but you get the idea. I'll support Bernie or whoever the Democratic nominee is.

There have also been a lot of conspiracy theories around the Iowa Caucus, but it looks exactly like what Filghy said. It is a state that is not demographically representative of the U.S. and the caucus format creates low turnout so it would be nice if it no longer goes first in primary season.

[Stavros]

From what I have read, what stands out is not the candidates, but the process -specifically the technology, and how it seems to have failed to be an efficient means of counting votes. It raises questions to ask those -Dominic Cummings is one of them- who think that the future, the near future will be digital, that smart phones comms will shape every decision we make, to the extent that Parliaments could be abolished and voters 'phone in' their desires, their support or opposition to this policy and that. I don't think we are near that yet, and just as important, as Republicans flooded the count with bogus messages, how does one have an electronic election if the process is inefficient and open to abuse?

The other question, given that Iowa is so small, is how will the candidates do on 'Super Tuesday'? Warren looks and sounds like she knows she is losing ground, but to me Bloomberg is the unknown quantity, and may be the only credible alternative to Biden. But I am far away and don't get a lot of the daily buzz that creates the nuances that shape voters decisions.

[filghy2]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

The latest odds from 538 are in the upper right hand corner. I know they've been wrong a lot but so is everyone else and I think they try to do an honest, professional job so I look at their poll aggregation once in a while.

It seems strange that the odds for Sanders and Biden have changed massively, presumably as a result of the Iowa outcome, but the odds for Buttigieg have hardly changed.

Your comments about Sanders' supporters confirm my suspicion that it may be a bit of a personality cult, like Corbynism in the UK Labour Party.

I think the big concern for the Democrats from Iowa is not so much the technology failure, but the fact that turnout was low.