US 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Race

[Eco]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Both Bloomberg and Steyer are advertising really hard in California (I know this first hand) and Nevada and New York. So I wouldn't be surprised if they end up doing well as front runners of the moderate side of the party. Either way, no candidate's ever won the nomination without winning Iowa and New Hampshire - for either party. It would be something pretty stunning if a candidate that sacked off one (or both) of these states ended up getting the nomination.

The thing about Bloomberg and Steyer… especially Bloomberg... is for as well as he does with moderate democrats.... he's pretty widely despised by the right & the left. The Democrats aren't Republicans, they don't just fall in line once there's a nominee for their party. A candidate that turns off a large chunk of the democrat base is likely to make a big impact on democrat voter turnout.

Think about it like this: two of the more popular democratic candidates are Sanders and Warren. They've been harping on about how the American political system is unfair, and they've used both billionaire candidates as examples of how someone with enough money can buy their way onto the debate stage and contest the nomination - and they've got a good point, tbh with the DNC changing it's rules after Bloomberg made big donations to them. It really emphasises the corruption at play in US politics and it gives the party that's been brazen in it's corruption but loves to project something to attack the billionaire candidate that wins the DNC nomination (if that nomination is won).

And then the DNC will be hoping they didn't just piss off huge groups of their base so much that it outweighs how much these people dislike Trump - so they still turn up to vote against Trump. And that's the thing, I really don't know if Bloomberg is less hated than Trump or not... and this is him not even being the nominee & just a candidate for the nomination. If he wins the nomination, I imagine that's huge groups of Sanders & Warren backers that will be turned off entirely from the process. And 2 primaries in a row of seeming just as corrupt as republicans and I think they're in danger of seeming legitimate the next go around.

I'm not so sure that not being able to flip McConnell from his role (because I don't think there's a hope in hell of Kentucky not electing a monumental turd into the senate, given their 2 senators currently - and I think the partisan split of the US right now means it's unlikely that any deep red/deep blue states flip tbh, means they may as well leave Trump in. While legislation comes from Congress, there's a lot of power the President does have without having to answer to Congress - every executive agency is something that the president can directly control. And court appointees are controlled by the President - I'd argue it's better to have no appointees to federal courts, and have judicial backlog of cases to hear, than filling the courts with right-wing extremists. It's bad enough Gorsuch and the guy who likes beer made it to the Supreme Court, but the federal courts have now had hundreds of appointees the American Bar Association has deemed unqualified and who were principally chosen for their extreme libertarian views or extreme religious views; which is overall bad for workers rights or freedom of/from religion.

Bloomberg is also all over the waves here in Atlanta. 

[Eco]

Bernie scares the shit out of me. I'm not anti-socialist, but damn he seems a bit over the top. 

Pete seems like a decent guy that I'd like to grab a beer with. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Eco said:

Bernie scares the shit out of me. I'm not anti-socialist, but damn he seems a bit over the top. 

Pete seems like a decent guy that I'd like to grab a beer with. 

Bernie and Warren scare me the least & any progressive agenda they have will be tempered by the fact that laws would require moderate Democrats and (probably) Republicans on board. That means his agenda would have to be tempered by the conservative nature of America.

Out of the 2 billionaire candidates, I think Steyer may actually be my favourite of the 2 & I think I might like him more than Mayor Pete, who keeps falling in my estimation. I don’t trust him very much, but he says all the right things on so many issues. He teeters the line between moderate and progressive pretty well. I don’t know if he connects with voters though, he’s certainly a bit of a weirdo.

Bloomberg is an unlikeable oligarch though and I want him to just stop running. I don’t think he helps America flush the orange turd

[Kowabunga]

19 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's true, but again... that's a better option than just having Trump appoint whoever the Koch brothers & the Federalist Society tell him to appoint to the courts. Or having him tear apart the EPA. Or having him use ICE as an American gestapo. All of these things would stop even with the turtle still remaining as majority leader.

David Koch actually died last year.

[Eco]

1 minute ago, Kowabunga said:

David Koch actually died last year.

Still too many left. 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Kowabunga said:

David Koch actually died last year.

Never mind. Satan will just find another person to possess.

[Harry]

On 08/02/2020 at 12:34, Eco said:

Bernie scares the shit out of me. I'm not anti-socialist, but damn he seems a bit over the top. 

Pete seems like a decent guy that I'd like to grab a beer with. 

The big issue with Bernie, trump is running on the economy, which by statistical measures is really powering along. And whilst that's flowing disproportionately the wrong way it still provides a reasonable baseline for the average Joe compared to what happens if it goes south.

Bernie is effectively advocating blowing up the economy, and most businesses would likely be strongly against him and thus would likely throw down to make him look bad as a nominee, and this will freak out a hell of a lot of people. (Bernie Sanders announces a policy and the Dow plummets)

Tolerating a foul mouthed belligerent narcissist who's preserving a reasonable economy starts looking the least bad option to many in those circumstances...

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 08/02/2020 at 22:38, Harry said:

The big issue with Bernie, trump is running on the economy, which by statistical measures is really powering along. And whilst that's flowing disproportionately the wrong way it still provides a reasonable baseline for the average Joe compared to what happens if it goes south.

Bernie is effectively advocating blowing up the economy, and most businesses would likely be strongly against him and thus would likely throw down to make him look bad as a nominee, and this will freak out a hell of a lot of people. (Bernie Sanders announces a policy and the Dow plummets)

Tolerating a foul mouthed belligerent narcissist who's preserving a reasonable economy starts looking the least bad option to many in those circumstances...

I think the statistics used to show the US economy's working for people are a bit misleading though.

Namely: 1.) stock prices & 2.) low unemployment.

Using the stock market as an indicator of the economy's strength is flawed - the stock market is best used as an indicator of investor confidence. But what the rise in stock prices since the Trump tax cuts have gone into effect is by showing us how US corporations have decided to invest their record profits in the aftermath of these tax cuts. They've overwhelmingly not invested in their workforce (better wages + better benefits for workers) and or investing in innovation (we've not seen R&D spending go up significantly) - we've seen them invest in buying their own stocks back. Share-buy-backs have happened at record rates since the 2018 tax cuts - this shrinks the number of shares. When you shrink the number of shares you increase: earnings per share & the overall stock price.

Tbh, this part of Trump's economic policies has actually benefitted me... my stock portfolio's looking pretty decent. But I think the issue is the vast majority of people in the US either don't have much in the way of investments or have minimal investments. So for many of those "average Joe's" that you see at Democratic townhalls with the candidates... when they talk about the economy they're not mentioning how great it is that the stock market is hitting record heights. They're talking about the lack of opportunity and upward mobility.

Those economic concerns aren't really reconciled by the record stock prices.

Low unemployment is an interesting statistic. The US's ideal unemployment rate is somewhere between 3.5%-5% unemployment (you want a "healthy" unemployment rate to account for people going in and out of work for better opportunities). Right now it's around 3.5%, which would be on the lower end of the "ideal unemployment rate." In San Diego, though, the unemployment rate is below that healthy percentage, at 2.8%. With stagnating wages, some of what we're seeing with the low unemployment numbers is a rise in people having more than one job.

The unemployment numbers also demonstrate the racial divide in America. For white workers in the US, unemployment is at 3% - for black workers in America, unemployment is at 6%.

For most workers in America, the most important economic statistic will be how much wages have gone up compared to inflation. There's been an increase in wages compared to inflation rates staying under 2% a year - but it's not been substantial enough to where you'd get most people on board with saying we've seen real economic growth in America.

[Harry]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the statistics used to show the US economy's working for people are a bit misleading though.

Namely: 1.) stock prices & 2.) low unemployment.

Using the stock market as an indicator of the economy's strength is flawed - the stock market is best used as an indicator of investor confidence. But what the rise in stock prices since the Trump tax cuts have gone into effect is by showing us how US corporations have decided to invest their record profits in the aftermath of these tax cuts. They've overwhelmingly not invested in their workforce (better wages + better benefits for workers) and or investing in innovation (we've not seen R&D spending go up significantly) - we've seen them invest in buying their own stocks back. Share-buy-backs have happened at record rates since the 2018 tax cuts - this shrinks the number of shares. When you shrink the number of shares you increase: earnings per share & the overall stock price.

Tbh, this part of Trump's economic policies has actually benefitted me... my stock portfolio's looking pretty decent. But I think the issue is the vast majority of people in the US either don't have much in the way of investments or have minimal investments. So for many of those "average Joe's" that you see at Democratic townhalls with the candidates... when they talk about the economy they're not mentioning how great it is that the stock market is hitting record heights. They're talking about the lack of opportunity and upward mobility.

Those economic concerns aren't really reconciled by the record stock prices.

Low unemployment is an interesting statistic. The US's ideal unemployment rate is somewhere between 3.5%-5% unemployment (you want a "healthy" unemployment rate to account for people going in and out of work for better opportunities). Right now it's around 3.5%, which would be on the lower end of the "ideal unemployment rate." In San Diego, though, the unemployment rate is below that healthy percentage, at 2.8%. With stagnating wages, some of what we're seeing with the low unemployment numbers is a rise in people having more than one job.

The unemployment numbers also demonstrate the racial divide in America. For white workers in the US, unemployment is at 3% - for black workers in America, unemployment is at 6%.

For most workers in America, the most important economic statistic will be how much wages have gone up compared to inflation. There's been an increase in wages compared to inflation rates staying under 2% a year - but it's not been substantial enough to where you'd get most people on board with saying we've seen real economic growth in America.

I don't disagree with any of that but it's still a hard argument to prosecute that its worth jeopardising the current economic situation to rectify. I think people in the middle on that issue will actually view trump as a safer option than Sanders.

[Tommy]

I feel the Bern! 

[Harry]

New Hampshire primary results relative to polling averages below.

I think the big narratives from this one are:

Klobuchar on the rise out of nowhere

Bernie and Pete 1,2 as expected, but closer than expected.

Warren and Biden way worse than expected. It may be time to drop out.

Nevada and South Carolina next and Bloomberg entering the race. 

 

[The Artful Dodger]

Nobody is going to beat Trump so it might as well be Sanders.

[Inverted]

When in doubt it looks like the centrist refrain is "there's no point in Bernie winning, even if he wins the presidency, because nothing is gonna get past the house anyway". 

That just makes no sense for me. If you're going to run into enormous opposition anyway, then why not make the biggest statement possible by electing the most radical leader possible and forcing the opposition to do all they can to stop him? Why not show up America's anti-democratic constitution for what it is, and let the people see it in broad daylight?

Centrist triangulation has turned into nothing more at grovelling at the shoes of the republicans, and that's what got us here. Obama was as moderate as they come and they fucked his presidency too. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

18 hours ago, Inverted said:

When in doubt it looks like the centrist refrain is "there's no point in Bernie winning, even if he wins the presidency, because nothing is gonna get past the house anyway". 

That just makes no sense for me. If you're going to run into enormous opposition anyway, then why not make the biggest statement possible by electing the most radical leader possible and forcing the opposition to do all they can to stop him? Why not show up America's anti-democratic constitution for what it is, and let the people see it in broad daylight?

Centrist triangulation has turned into nothing more at grovelling at the shoes of the republicans, and that's what got us here. Obama was as moderate as they come and they fucked his presidency too. 

American moderates have allowed the US right wing to push the centre more and more to the right. Look at a lot of “moderate republican positions” and compare them to the Republican Party’s positions in the 1990s. They are so very very similar. And Obamacare is just a version of Romney’s health plan for Massachusetts, which was based off Nixon’s proposed healthcare reform for the US. It’s not some radical socialist policy - if anything it’s crony capitalism for US insurance companies. But that’s how how the American media would have it portrayed.

I think Bernie will get the Corbyn treatment from the media. The big “lefty” TV news network in the US, MSNBC is furious that Bernie is doing well. And it’s not surprising as the entity that owns them, Comcast has given a ridiculous amount of money to the RNC for this 2020 election.
Billionaires would rather have moderate democrats that seek bipartisanship even in the face of growing extremism from the other party. Because ultimately that means the side they paid for that owes them favours will be there to put their policies in place.

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

American moderates have allowed the US right wing to push the centre more and more to the right. Look at a lot of “moderate republican positions” and compare them to the Republican Party’s positions in the 1990s. They are so very very similar. And Obamacare is just a version of Romney’s health plan for Massachusetts, which was based off Nixon’s proposed healthcare reform for the US. It’s not some radical socialist policy - if anything it’s crony capitalism for US insurance companies. But that’s how how the American media would have it portrayed.

I think Bernie will get the Corbyn treatment from the media. The big “lefty” TV news network in the US, MSNBC is furious that Bernie is doing well. And it’s not surprising as the entity that owns them, Comcast has given a ridiculous amount of money to the RNC for this 2020 election.
Billionaires would rather have moderate democrats that seek bipartisanship even in the face of growing extremism from the other party. Because ultimately that means the side they paid for that owes them favours will be there to put their policies in place.

There are a lot of people near the middle mate, so there will always be a pull back towards the centre when a more extreme candidate is tabled. Such as Ted cruz and rand Paul last time. 

[Harry]

 

[Inverted]

I'm not sure "my billionaire New York pals all think you're an idiot" is the kind of rhetoric that's going to get you very far with a rival who runs on explicitly anti-establishment rhetoric. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

There are a lot of people near the middle mate, so there will always be a pull back towards the centre when a more extreme candidate is tabled. Such as Ted cruz and rand Paul last time. 

In the US the pullback only seems to be by the right. Look at how Obama, a very centrist democrat, was treated and how his policies have been painted as socialist.

Meanwhile in the US, there's a radical President that's been systematically attacking the US's political institutions and rule of law... and the pull back to the centre has been pretty much nonexistent. We've got moderate candidates talking about working with people who've shown they won't budge an inch even when a moderate is in office and bends over to try to work with them (see: Obama); meanwhile the leadership of the other party knows if it doesn't budge an inch on any issue eventually moderates from the other side will reach out to them. They've redefined what the centre is really.

[Panflute]

Does anyone have a shot at this other than Bernie at this point?

The only other candidates to poll well leading up to Super Tuesday are Biden and, to a lesser extent, Buttigieg.

I can't see Buttigieg having a shot as his polling numbers among black voters are nothing short of abysmal, and the same applies to a lesser extent to other ethnic minority voter demographics. And it might just be me, but he just seems thoroughly unlikeable even by political standards.

Warren exists I guess. Didn't she get beaten by fucking Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire?

Biden has pretty broad support and do well in the Southern states due to the black vote, but this guy's such a goofball that he makes Trump look coherent. I feel that the longer he stays in the race the more he will get he chance to tank his own odds. The rhetoric that 'a centrist candidate will be better for the Democratic bill' is also something far fewer people will buy this time after the Democrats 2016 debacle.

Sanders on the other hand seems to be doing pretty well in all demographics this time, and is also the main second choice for Warren and Biden supporters.

Bloomberg has a lot of money and a terrible reputation. Can't see his candidacy going anywhere.

[God is Haaland]

On 13/02/2020 at 22:38, Inverted said:

I'm not sure "my billionaire New York pals all think you're an idiot" is the kind of rhetoric that's going to get you very far with a rival who runs on explicitly anti-establishment rhetoric. 

Is he really running on anti-establishment rhetoric explicitly?

 

[Harry]

21 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Does anyone have a shot at this other than Bernie at this point?

The only other candidates to poll well leading up to Super Tuesday are Biden and, to a lesser extent, Buttigieg.

I can't see Buttigieg having a shot as his polling numbers among black voters are nothing short of abysmal, and the same applies to a lesser extent to other ethnic minority voter demographics. And it might just be me, but he just seems thoroughly unlikeable even by political standards.

Warren exists I guess. Didn't she get beaten by fucking Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire?

Biden has pretty broad support and do well in the Southern states due to the black vote, but this guy's such a goofball that he makes Trump look coherent. I feel that the longer he stays in the race the more he will get he chance to tank his own odds. The rhetoric that 'a centrist candidate will be better for the Democratic bill' is also something far fewer people will buy this time after the Democrats 2016 debacle.

Sanders on the other hand seems to be doing pretty well in all demographics this time, and is also the main second choice for Warren and Biden supporters.

Bloomberg has a lot of money and a terrible reputation. Can't see his candidacy going anywhere.

Sanders could win the nomination, but it would take a similar movement to what drove trump.

Biden I think will drop out before Super Tuesday. He's literally running because he thinks he's the best candidate to beat trump and restore alliances. However when he sees that lack of support he'll step out early to give the party a chance to coalesce around one of the other candidates.

Klobuchar could get it done but really she is by far the least progressive of the candidates. So ideologically that's a huge leap for Bernie supporters. She's also dry as toast which doesn't bode great for turnout.

Buttigieg and Warren are better compromise candidates. Both are clever and could stand a chance of pulling together a coalition from the currently divided field. And both I think could drive enough enthusiasm to beat trump at the ballot box.

 

[Panflute]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Sanders could win the nomination, but it would take a similar movement to what drove trump.

Biden I think will drop out before Super Tuesday. He's literally running because he thinks he's the best candidate to beat trump and restore alliances. However when he sees that lack of support he'll step out early to give the party a chance to coalesce around one of the other candidates.

Klobuchar could get it done but really she is by far the least progressive of the candidates. So ideologically that's a huge leap for Bernie supporters. She's also dry as toast which doesn't bode great for turnout.

Buttigieg and Warren are better compromise candidates. Both are clever and could stand a chance of pulling together a coalition from the currently divided field. And both I think could drive enough enthusiasm to beat trump at the ballot box.

 

I can't see Biden dropping out so early as he's topping the polls in several Super Tuesday states. The polls in southern states are based on limited data so it remains to be seen how he actually does there, but by all means he'll remain in the race and see how his 'firewall' holds up, especially since Buttigieg has little chance there. My guess for the next major candidate to drop out would be Warren given how vastly she's underperformed so far.

Sanders does indeed seem the most 'Trumpian' candidate for the Democrats given his relative distance from the party. Even some of the rhetoric in the traditional media is the same as during Trump's primary campaign, saying he 'can't poll above 40%' etc.

[Kowabunga]

Bloomberg seems to fantasise about running a "based" (pun intended) platform.

De Blasio endorsing Bernie is interesting. Vis-à-vis the primary ballots in New York, you'd prefer to have some support from the big democratic party figures. De Blasio endorsed Hillary in 2016, IIRC.

As dull as she comes up, Klobuchar commands great appeal among grannies and grandpas.

Warren looks good policy-wise, but she has shown behavioural red flags shedding concerns about her moral compass.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think Bernie polling well with independents who weren't inclined to vote for Hillary is a good indication that maybe Biden/Bloomberg aren't the most electable people the democrats can put up as a nominee. I think Biden's just done what he's done every time he's run for president before, talk about how he's very electable and popular and then fade away once people actually start voting. Bloomberg's probably viewing the democratic moderate candidates as pretty weak - because clearly their message isn't resonating with voters the same way Bernie's seems to be. So he's using billions of dollars to flood the airwaves with ads and as a centrist he's pretty popular with the media, so he's basically got a decent control on the media narrative about his chances.

It's interesting seeing someone like Chris Matthews (a US news talking head on MSNBC) go from being "Trump is horrible, how can this man be president" to be absolutely furious about the prospect of Bernie running and basically begging for Bloomberg to run. It's interesting because Brexit got pretty minimal coverage in the US - but he keeps equating Bernie to Jeremy Corbyn. I think that could be an indication of where the media's head is at in terms of how they'll cover Bernie though.

Although it might be harder to claim that Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man, hates Jews in the same way they did with Corbyn. But I do think he should prepare himself for more boldface lies about his policies and his character if he keeps doing well in these polls. He's got the ultra-wealthy worried they'll lose their massive tax breaks.

[Harry]

This will be an interesting debate tonight with Bloomberg participating for the first time, and actually polling quite well in Nevada and most super Tuesday states. 

Warren and Sanders have been scathing so far. Bernie calling it oligarchy. Warren tweeting some zingers.

Warren will really need to go for broke tonight. 

A recent poll of Virginia showing Buttigieg polling quite solidly among African Americans.

Makes you wonder where they'd turn if Biden stepped off...