US 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Race

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

Honestly mate people just despair at the idea of having an election between two radical candidates.

[Harry]

Bloomberg will need to land some heavy blows to avoid the taking points all being those landed on him. 

We'll hear this trump of the left mentioned I reckon.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'd argue that Bloomberg could also be called the Trump of the left, considering that he's a billionaire oligarch that wants to ensure America's politics remains firmly under the control of other oligarchs like himself.

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Honestly mate people just despair at the idea of having an election between two radical candidates.

I also think there'd be a lot of despair from certain corners of having a billionaire literally buy the presidency.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'd argue that Bloomberg could also be called the Trump of the left, considering that he's a billionaire oligarch that wants to ensure America's politics remains firmly under the control of other oligarchs like himself.

I also think there'd be a lot of despair from certain corners of having a billionaire literally buy the presidency.

There is mate. Completely. Bottom line there are some very polarising candidates in this primary contest. And the biggest challenge will be finding someone that will build enough of a coalition to beat trump.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Harry said:

There is mate. Completely. Bottom line there are some very polarising candidates in this primary contest.

Tbh my faith in American democracy is pretty much at absolute zero

[Harry]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbh my faith in American democracy is pretty much at absolute zero

For good reason. The corruption these days has become very very overt. I fear the inspiration being drawn from it by Australian right wingers.

But I think it's a mistake to rebel against that by moving radically the opposite direction, and to put all democratic moderates in the basket of being all about looking after the billionaires. I personally look for a candidate that is a realist, and is looking to bring about change in an achieveable way. Part of that involves working within the system that exists today and doing what you can try improve it.

The road to a progressive future isn't reached by electing the politically left extreme leader who promises simple solutions to complex problems. It comes from sustained effort to keep a hold on power for a long as possible, at all levels of government, to restore balance to judicial benches, and build enough of a critical mass in all aspects of policy making that sensible measures supported by a majority of Americans can be implemented.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Harry said:

The road to a progressive future isn't reached by electing the politically left extreme leader who promises simple solutions to complex problems. It comes from sustained effort to keep a hold on power for a long as possible, at all levels of government, to restore balance to judicial benches, and build enough of a critical mass in all aspects of policy making that sensible measures supported by a majority of Americans can be implemented.

Tbf… that's not necessarily the case in American history. The New Deal was put into place by someone a lot of political opponents felt was "left extreme" - and it radically changed the US.

I don't think it pulled the US out of the Great Depression, like so many Americans do think it did - I think the US being the major industrial nation that didn't have it's infrastructure absolutely decimated by the war is what actually pulled them out of the Great Depression. But that was 100% the most progressive move forward for America. And it was in one big leap.

I just don't think negotiating before any proposed legislation has been promised is the best thing to do. There are clearly a lot of Americans who feel absolutely left behind by the status quo.

I think the status quo centrists have really fucked America. They've let the right keep pushing the middle more and more to the right and they're complicit in being a part of this system that's led to the wage gap just growing ever more - I'm not convinced someone trying to bring things back to how they were under Obama is going to do anything positive for the Americans who feel left behind.

It's honestly a weird thing to write about, because America's been good to me economically. I'm making way more money than I would be in the UK and comparatively, I think I live in a much nicer part of the world than London... with an arguably (it depends which metrics you count and which you don't - because where I live isn't cheap either) lower cost of living than the highest salary I saw on any job offer in the UK (in London). But I'm also fortunate in that unlike most American workers, I haven't been saddled with student loan debt.

There's no way any one president coming in will be able to restore balance to the judicial benches in the U.S. The GOP has rammed through so many federal court appointees (many of whom the American Bar Association has ranked as "unqualified").

And in all honesty, with the way pardons for political corruption have been doled out in recent weeks - it seems like the new messaging from the head of the GOP is: "do whatever it takes to guarantee the election results we want; I'll pardon you if we're caught."

So I don't have much faith in the way of American democracy, the overt corruption and the failure of institutions meant to preserve it don't lead me to think we're going to see a rebirth in American democracy. If anything, I foresee everything become more partisan and more divided. And the less said that I think about the electorate at large... that's probably for the best.

I still think the US is in a better position than my home country with it's own similar issues with extremists in politics & huge numbers of people feeling left behind by the status quo. But we've got grim political realities, clueless politicians, and an even more clueless electorate in the US, the UK, and I imagine... all over the Anglosphere.

[Harry]

Fair points. 

To be honest I'm struggling to see any rebirth in democracy unless it's kick started by a war. 

I don't completely discount the possibility of a full move towards authoritarianism from the right side of politics. I would be feeling very paranoid as a non pro authoritarian right winger in the us given the current lock her up mentality and the number of guns out there and who owns most of them.

[Panflute]

Apparently Bloomberg got buried during the debate.

[Harry]

Sounds like E Warren knocked it out of the park. Allegedly one of the best presidential debate performances ever, going full blitzkrieg on Bloomberg from her opening sentence:

I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women “fat broads” and “horse-faced lesbians.” And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump, I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.

Sanders benefited from relatively minor attacks.

Buttigieg made a good case for picking someone other than the two most polarising candidates. "Let's not pick between the guy who wants to burn this party to the ground, and the one who wants to buy it out". But ultimately got into a fair bit on infighting with klobuchar.

 

[DeadLinesman]

Most were arguing amongst themselves and targeting Bloomberg, so Sanders just sat back and watched relatively unscathed. Bloomberg has spectacularly backfired for the Democrats. It was noticeable that every candidate bar Sanders refused to confirm if they’d go with the popular vote though.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Panflute said:

Apparently Bloomberg got buried during the debate.

Yeah Bloomberg got hammered by everyone, especially Warren. And then had a particularly bad moment when discussing his own taxes, where he comes off as out of touch and insincere.

Love to see it tbh, Bloomberg running as the democratic nomination seems like a surefire way to get Trump reelected 

[Panflute]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah Bloomberg got hammered by everyone, especially Warren. And then had a particularly bad moment when discussing his own taxes, where he comes off as out of touch and insincere.

Love to see it tbh, Bloomberg running as the democratic nomination seems like a surefire way to get Trump reelected 

Earlier this week I saw a take on Bloomberg from a Bernie campaigner that seemed pretty spot on. It was something like, Michael Bloomberg is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign money on preventing you from finding out who Michael Bloomberg really is.

[Dr. Gonzo]

55 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Earlier this week I saw a take on Bloomberg from a Bernie campaigner that seemed pretty spot on. It was something like, Michael Bloomberg is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign money on preventing you from finding out who Michael Bloomberg really is.

Apparently Bloomberg's now thinking about not attending the remainder of debates... while still running for President. Which goes hand in hand with thinking that Bloomberg's ready to drop as much money as it takes to make sure we don't know who he is as he runs for president.

I think every candidate on the stage last night wants Bloomberg to be at all future debates. Biden's looked pretty awful in every debate... except last night.

Tbh, it was good practice for the eventual democratic nominee. And last night showed every candidate (especially Warren, who set out right from the off to beat Bloomberg over the head with facts about Michael Bloomberg) is capable of humiliating a thin skinned billionaire at a debate.

It's kind of scary though, how much support from chunks of the democratic base he's able to cobble together from just flooding the airwaves with 30 second ads that at best don't really say anything, and at worst are deliberately misleading (he's got one out that looks like Barrack Obama's endorsed him - which isn't the case). But it does seem like from everyone who watched the debate, their opinion of him has really tanked.

It's interesting to see how dismayed MSNBC (the "left's" TV news channel in the US) was by his poor showing. He's pretty clearly the favourite of many of their talking heads - and I suspect because he's basically a moderate republican... his policies are probably favourable to the executives at MSNBC & their parent Comcast. Reminds me a lot though of how Bernie got a rough ride from the press the last time when the clear media favourite on the democrat side was basically just forced onto the country. I suspect if Warren (unlikely tbh, despite her showing yesterday) or Bernie win, the left's news channel will probably be doing all it can to make sure Trump is reelected.

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Apparently Bloomberg's now thinking about not attending the remainder of debates... while still running for President. Which goes hand in hand with thinking that Bloomberg's ready to drop as much money as it takes to make sure we don't know who he is as he runs for president.

I think every candidate on the stage last night wants Bloomberg to be at all future debates. Biden's looked pretty awful in every debate... except last night.

Tbh, it was good practice for the eventual democratic nominee. And last night showed every candidate (especially Warren, who set out right from the off to beat Bloomberg over the head with facts about Michael Bloomberg) is capable of humiliating a thin skinned billionaire at a debate.

It's kind of scary though, how much support from chunks of the democratic base he's able to cobble together from just flooding the airwaves with 30 second ads that at best don't really say anything, and at worst are deliberately misleading (he's got one out that looks like Barrack Obama's endorsed him - which isn't the case). But it does seem like from everyone who watched the debate, their opinion of him has really tanked.

It's interesting to see how dismayed MSNBC (the "left's" TV news channel in the US) was by his poor showing. He's pretty clearly the favourite of many of their talking heads - and I suspect because he's basically a moderate republican... his policies are probably favourable to the executives at MSNBC & their parent Comcast. Reminds me a lot though of how Bernie got a rough ride from the press the last time when the clear media favourite on the democrat side was basically just forced onto the country. I suspect if Warren (unlikely tbh, despite her showing yesterday) or Bernie win, the left's news channel will probably be doing all it can to make sure Trump is reelected.

It's great that Bloomberg got destroyed and he fucking deserves it because it is the most negative statement possible for most democrats to embrace a Republican candidate who's buying his way through the contest. The big issue for last night's candidates was that none went hard on Bernie. He's got a big lead in polls and if they can't sap that momentum before Super Tuesday he could secure an insurmountable lead.

It was a big performance from Warren because you can see how she'd absolutely destroy trump in a debate, and you know Buttigieg is quick enough to eviscerate him also. I wouldn't say that of everyone though. Klobuchar in particular, seemed to be a very spiteful person and I think if Buttigieg gets under her skin that easily trump will absolutely destroy her. Not by argument but by doing what he does best and slanging insults and taking facts out of the equation. 

Joe I can only see looking like a worse version of Hillary Clinton in debates against trump. And burisma will become the next emails Saga.

 

[Harry]

The more I look at it the more I think only Warren and Buttigieg stand a chance against trump. Bernie loses too many centrists who just couldn't stomach the economic risk. Biden Bloomberg and klobuchar couldn't hope to get the Bernie bros on side. Warren is very progressive but likely a more acceptable compromise option than Bernie and could adeptly pivot in the general election on some policies. Buttigieg is pretty progressive in his views just more pragmatic than some others. He shouldn't be polarising within the democratic base in his stances on most issues but his sexuality hurts him in some minority groups and he does seem to be detested in some quarters who don't like him.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

The more I look at it the more I think only Warren and Buttigieg stand a chance against trump. Bernie loses too many centrists who just couldn't stomach the economic risk. Biden Bloomberg and klobuchar couldn't hope to get the Bernie bros on side. Warren is very progressive but likely a more acceptable compromise option than Bernie and could adeptly pivot in the general election on some policies. Buttigieg is pretty progressive in his views just more pragmatic than some others. He shouldn't be polarising within the democratic base in his stances on most issues but his sexuality hurts him in some minority groups and he does seem to be detested in some quarters who don't like him.

I think Warren or Bernie are the 2 best shots. I think Pete’s sexuality hurts him in a lot of states that could otherwise be battlegrounds.

I’d love to see Warren debate Trump though. She’d absolutely eviscerate him.

[Panflute]

20 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Apparently Bloomberg's now thinking about not attending the remainder of debates... while still running for President. Which goes hand in hand with thinking that Bloomberg's ready to drop as much money as it takes to make sure we don't know who he is as he runs for president.

I think every candidate on the stage last night wants Bloomberg to be at all future debates. Biden's looked pretty awful in every debate... except last night.

Tbh, it was good practice for the eventual democratic nominee. And last night showed every candidate (especially Warren, who set out right from the off to beat Bloomberg over the head with facts about Michael Bloomberg) is capable of humiliating a thin skinned billionaire at a debate.

It's kind of scary though, how much support from chunks of the democratic base he's able to cobble together from just flooding the airwaves with 30 second ads that at best don't really say anything, and at worst are deliberately misleading (he's got one out that looks like Barrack Obama's endorsed him - which isn't the case). But it does seem like from everyone who watched the debate, their opinion of him has really tanked.

It's interesting to see how dismayed MSNBC (the "left's" TV news channel in the US) was by his poor showing. He's pretty clearly the favourite of many of their talking heads - and I suspect because he's basically a moderate republican... his policies are probably favourable to the executives at MSNBC & their parent Comcast. Reminds me a lot though of how Bernie got a rough ride from the press the last time when the clear media favourite on the democrat side was basically just forced onto the country. I suspect if Warren (unlikely tbh, despite her showing yesterday) or Bernie win, the left's news channel will probably be doing all it can to make sure Trump is reelected.

Bloomberg is clearly trying to copy Trump's campaign in a lot of ways, what with boycotting debates and trying to sway votes digitally by paying influencer to make memes about him. There are a few vital shortcomings for Bloomberg, though, namely that you have to be funny to get away with saying/doing the things Trump says or does, and having the instinct/talent to manipulate the news cycles into revolving around you 24/7. Bloomberg sort of succeeded in doing the latter by sheer virtue of pumping money into ads, but since the debate the news stories have mainly been about how badly he got pummeled.

I think Bloomberg and Trump are of a different order in the end; that they're successfully hitting Bloomberg with some of angles that could also be applied to Trump doesn't say too much as Bloomberg is running as a Democrat and is therefore a lot more vulnerable to these things.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see where it goes. My prediction is still that it'll be Trump vs. Sanders, with Trump winning. If nothing else, I just hope that the "we need a moderate ticket to beat Trump" narrative will die down again, as these are the exact same arguments that led to Hillary Clinton and her historical failure.

[Inverted]

The culture war angle that Trump plays with his supporters - that he is against the establishment, that his opposition are crooked traitors/paedophiles/communists - just can't be overcome head-on.

Trying to play the identity game against Trump is like fighting a punching bag. The harder you swing at it, the harder it comes back. Then you're back to square one with nothing but wasted energy to show for it. 

I think you can only beat Trump by moving the discussion away from culture and identity, and onto policy. Hillary tried to fight on values and morals, got shredded on it, and had nothing else to offer. 

[Harry]

19 hours ago, Panflute said:

Bloomberg is clearly trying to copy Trump's campaign in a lot of ways, what with boycotting debates and trying to sway votes digitally by paying influencer to make memes about him. There are a few vital shortcomings for Bloomberg, though, namely that you have to be funny to get away with saying/doing the things Trump says or does, and having the instinct/talent to manipulate the news cycles into revolving around you 24/7. Bloomberg sort of succeeded in doing the latter by sheer virtue of pumping money into ads, but since the debate the news stories have mainly been about how badly he got pummeled.

I think Bloomberg and Trump are of a different order in the end; that they're successfully hitting Bloomberg with some of angles that could also be applied to Trump doesn't say too much as Bloomberg is running as a Democrat and is therefore a lot more vulnerable to these things.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see where it goes. My prediction is still that it'll be Trump vs. Sanders, with Trump winning. If nothing else, I just hope that the "we need a moderate ticket to beat Trump" narrative will die down again, as these are the exact same arguments that led to Hillary Clinton and her historical failure.

I think that's the wrong conclusion to draw. People were profoundly apathetic about voting for her specifically because:

Effective character assassination against her for a decade by GOP

A general narrative that it was her time

The fact that so many other politicians didn't dip their toe into the water and stood back. People like to have choice.

The fact that even in the previous election they preferred Obama over her.

Many other things I'm forgetting

[Panflute]

4 hours ago, Harry said:

I think that's the wrong conclusion to draw. People were profoundly apathetic about voting for her specifically because:

Effective character assassination against her for a decade by GOP

A general narrative that it was her time

The fact that so many other politicians didn't dip their toe into the water and stood back. People like to have choice.

The fact that even in the previous election they preferred Obama over her.

Many other things I'm forgetting

Many other things such as the Democratic Party screwing over Bernie to get her on the ticket because of the "we need a moderate" narrative, the extreme sense of entitlement radiated by Clinton and her supporters for the entire duration of the campaign, Clinton's gender spearheading many of her campaign messages while ignoring the massive amounts of privilege she has enjoyed throughout life, her disastrous decisions as a secretary of state, her general unlikeability as a person, etc.

Perhaps the conclusion that Clinton's demise means a moderate candidate will fail again is too simplistic, but even beyond that you can see people making the exact same mistakes as back in 2016: favoring a moderate candidate based on their potential bipartisan appeal alone while ignoring their immense flaws as politicians and people. The general lesson people need to draw from 2016 is that a candidate being more moderate doesn't automatically make them more electable. Hell, even Obama was considered a 'radical' candidate back in 2008. Bloomberg is essentially Clinton 2.0 in that sense.

[Azeem]

Is there rigging in US presidential elections ?

[Kowabunga]

1 hour ago, Azeem said:

Is there rigging in US presidential elections ?

The fact that voting systems in the United States vary significantly from one state to another is kinda dismaying but, TBF, I think the biggest issue there (aside from the whole electoral college concept) is voter suppression.

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 hours ago, Azeem said:

Is there rigging in US presidential elections ?

Probably tbh

[Panflute]

Sanders winning big in Nevada, but more importantly, he's also polling well in North and South Carolina. In previous weeks, the polls there predicted a Biden landslide, but it seems the combination of a few elements has caused that to change: 1) Sanders's momentum; the latest results show he got over 46% of the votes in Nevada (while critics claimed before that he couldn't poll above 40% due to his 'radical' profile; 2) Bloomberg entering the race and taking away from Biden's support as another 'moderate' option. His debate performance was awful, but with the amount of money he can spend on ads and exposure, it might just be enough to keep the wind out of Biden's sails; 3) Sanders has spent a lot on improving his standing with minority groups.

The latter point is summarized well by The Hill:

In the 2016 primary, Sanders struggled mightily with voters of color, who broke in large numbers for Hillary Clinton and ultimately propelled her to the nomination.

Since then, Sanders has invested heavily in outreach to racial minorities and he’s accumulated a diverse team of dynamic surrogates.

Those efforts are paying off in 2020, as Sanders has built a diverse coalition of Latinos, young people, and union members, who drove him to a huge victory in Nevada, the most diverse state to vote so far.

[...]

While former Vice President Joe Biden has enjoyed strong support from black voters, there are growing signs that many African Americans are giving Sanders a serious look. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey released this week found Sanders and Biden in a statistical tie nationally among black voters.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/484229-5-takeaways-from-the-nevada-caucuses