2020 Elections

[spork]

Interested in your last thought, particularity...

Is that because of the high-level mudslinging generated by the impeachment process + the "promised"/threatened investigation now potentially in process against him and his son?

Or...??

Two reasons:

1. He's damaged goods now because of Hunter, Burisma, and Trump. Burisma was obviously trying to buy political access by hiring the VP's son. Not illegal, but it was wrong and stupid for Hunter to accept the job and his father to let him accept. Joe Biden is tainted in the eyes of many of the rural white voters that the Democratic candidate most needs to attract.

2. He's never been a great candidate on the national stage -- lying about his academic record, plagiarizing a speech, talking past people in generalities in a non-inspiring manner -- but actually he's simply old. He doesn't understand the need to leverage technology into an effective ground game. And he didn't build a team capable of doing it for him. His message is "behold my call to return back to a gentler time, when things like the Internet, cell phones, climate change, and gross economic inequality didn't exist." I.e., "Make America Great Again But Without The Misogyny And Racism."

My original question was actually less granular....is there a danger that if the polls suggest an upcoming loss for Trump he could find a way to cancel the elections entirely?

I don't think his paranoid megalomania, enabled by his rabid fan base, is incapable of it, given what we've just seen in the peremptory firing of those who testified against him...he wouldn't even listen to those who suggested it was a bad idea, and I think he's now more dangerous than ever.

M.

The rural hordes will not heed any hint Trump makes at armed insurrection. If he loses the election but refuses to leave the White House because he thinks it will strengthen his brand and therefore be profitable, he'll end up getting frogmarched out and tossed on the pavement. What is more likely is even greater amounts of Russian interference with social media and attempts to hack ballot systems, to introduce as much confusion, sense of insecurity, and apathy among the U.S. public as possible -- with the goal of lessening the legitimacy and effectiveness of U.S. political institutions, to in turn weaken the U.S. internationally.

Side note: I find it dispiriting that the media has consistently depicted Biden as the white Obama for black voters. A bunch of white media celebrities speculating about a white candidate and not investigating whether black voters actually think the way the media celebrities are saying they do. I predict Biden's campaign will continue its downward spiral and that he will get crushed in South Carolina if his campaign lasts that long.

[mamselle]

I've been on the fence about Biden for years because I view his Foot-in-Mouth disease (weird, worrisome gaffes) as something other than cute--but I do feel strongly that this is not the time to indulge cute, wide-eyed, eyeglass-wearing economics students (or older, more grizzled ones) in their more radical utopian hopes when faced with the lying orange grizzly bear they're going to be up against.

The nuanced arguments needed to prove or disprove specific points of democratic socialism are going to glaze over the eyes of those not already aware of and in agreement with them....and they'll go vote for the grizzly bear.

I'd like to like Warren, but can't warm to her, and wouldn't mind Buttigieg as VP but he's too wet behind the ears to be President, yet. Ditto Klobuchar.

If Romney crossed over, I'd take him in a heartbeat, but we need him where he is; same with Pelosi (I know, she's not running, but a woman can dream, can't she?). 

That leave Bloomberg--at least he has experience and isn't financially beholden--Biden--whose pull in various quarters can't be dismissed, yet (although it's weakening, and the "white Obama" thing is weird, I agree, as well as worrying)--and Clinton, if she suddenly declares, which might yet be possible. (Could Michelle run? THAT I'd like to see!)

Dunno.

That's my rundown...

M.

[ciao_yall]

In 2016 I thought Sanders was just a slightly more liberal version of Trump. Both loudmouths with a lot to say, surprisingly similar things to say in many areas, but for some reason getting attention. Guess it was more entertaining than the experienced woman in the room with real solutions.

Now I see the two lightest weight, biggest blowhards in the D primary (Sanders, Buttigieg) sucking up all the oxygen while the experienced women (Warren, Klobuchar) get left behind.

The UK has a similar situation to Trump vs Sanders - Johnson vs Corbyn.

[mamselle]

I'm with you on Clinton.

Warren reminds me more of Segolene Royale: strong theoretical base but no clue about how to put wheels on it and make it go. I haven't been much impressed either way in her effectiveness on the state level.

I'd say I like Sanders better than Corbyn...the latter just finds different weird things to say for effect than Johnson, whom I can't stand....

I will say Klobuchar spoke truth to power...or asked the right questions of power...when it mattered.

But I still say it was instructive that the US could both nominate and vote for a black male before it could elect a white female...the gender issue, I think, is more of a sticking point, still, than anything else (Yang might disagree, I suppose....).

So I'm being pragmatic.

Whatever will work to clear the Cheeto wrappers out of the White House is what has to move forward.

M.

[marshwiggle]

The nuanced arguments needed to prove or disprove specific points of democratic socialism are going to glaze over the eyes of those not already aware of and in agreement with them....and they'll go vote for the grizzly bear.

One of the best things they could do to appeal to mainstream voters is to stop using the term "socialism" so glibly. Many of the policies the left likes in other countries are in places where they have never elected a "socialist" government. Many (most?) communist governements call/called themselves "socialist" to sound less authoritariian. The point is, even for people who are fairly centrist or slightly left-leaning, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons that "socialism" is not a desirable alternative to the status quo.

Their eyes aren't glazed over; they're wide open.

[spork]

The New York Times is reporting that the tally sheets used to report results in the Iowa caucuses are rife with basic math errors, but state party officials are not going to try to fix errors.

[kaysixteen]

Random thoughts:
1.  Warm up to Warren?  Why can't you do that?  Obviously since you too are a woman, it ain't misogyny, so why?  She is vastly more qualified than Klobuchar, and does not have the latter's very problematic record when it comes to the treatment of her Senate staffer.
2. Like it or not, we've gotta beat Drumpf, and as such, we need to face reality, namely that Bernie's socialism AND Buttigieg's homosexuality both strongly limit the overall number if voters, especially in swing States where it'll matter, who would vote for them, even if many such voters would publicly assert otherwise, a la Bradley effect, no matter how hard that might be for coastal urban and suburban secular elites to grasp.  Warren, Steyer, Yang, etc, probably have less of this sort of problem, as, yuck, likely also does Bloomberg.

[mamselle]

I know, I know.

I do, and did, very much, respect her bright, strong cunning when it came to reading the Coretta Scott King passage she was barred from reading in the Senate:

   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-elizabeth-warren-barred-speaking-impugning-sen-jeff-sessions-n718166

and

   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-merkley-mark-udall-elizabeth-warren/index.html

and the video:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8L4bGJt4a0

live.

And the full reading she gave, right afterwards, outside:

   https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/318429-warren-reads-coretta-scott-king-letter-opposing-sessions-from-outside-senate

Very proud of her.


But there's a difference between that very brave effort (and the calm way she kept insisting on her right, and really, CSKing's right, to be heard in the Senate chambers) and the day-to-day balancing of pragmatic issues and needs.

Her speeches (to me) seem to be getting more theoretical, and while I'm in favor of people knowing why they're doing what they're doing, and being able to explain it to others, it seems to me as if she's losing her way and trying to out-Bernie the Bernie-and-AOL show (which might, again, be fine in another setting, but we're in too tight a situation now, I think, to be able to indulge that level of dreaming...)

Very basic, very simple stuff is what is going to put things back in order, it seems to me, at the moment, and I worry that she's not going there.

And there has to be that nagging, irritating issue answered: Is a woman electable in this country?? (And I proudly voted for Clinton, and would again, but I'm not one of the voters who has to be wooed away from the Cheeto-consumer.

It's not about gender; opposition to a female candidate need not be about their gender, but their qualifications.

It's about electability, and exact fitness for the office. We really only get one shot at this.

It has to be absolutely right.

M.

[marshwiggle]

And there has to be that nagging, irritating issue answered: Is a woman electable in this country?? (And I proudly voted for Clinton, and would again, but I'm not one of the voters who has to be wooed away from the Cheeto-consumer.

Are there any data on how many peoplewho were not already strong Democrat supporters voted for Clinton? What percentage of independent voters picked Clinton and what percentage picked Trump?

[mamselle]

Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.

[marshwiggle]

Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.

I'm confused; Bernie wasn't even on the ballot! (And if people were sufficiently ambivalent about Clinton to write-in, that says something in itself.)

My original point was that it's not clear to me that Clinton gained any support from voters; the people who voted for her would probably have voted for whatever Democratic candidate was on offer.

However, if that's actually the case, that overconfidence in the Democrats winning had a significant impact, then in 2020 they should have no problem beating Trump. (I'm not holding my breath.)

[nebo113]

Let's do keep in mind that Hilary won more votes than 45*.

[mamselle]

These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

[ciao_yall]

Dunno offhand, but the bigger problem there were Jill Stein and dear ol'Bernie.

I had several friends (n=6, maybe, total) who said things like, "Well, Clinton's going to win so I'm going to vote for Bernie (or Stein) since it's safe to do so."


Oops....


M.

I'm confused; Bernie wasn't even on the ballot! (And if people were sufficiently ambivalent about Clinton to write-in, that says something in itself.)

My original point was that it's not clear to me that Clinton gained any support from voters; the people who voted for her would probably have voted for whatever Democratic candidate was on offer.

However, if that's actually the case, that overconfidence in the Democrats winning had a significant impact, then in 2020 they should have no problem beating Trump. (I'm not holding my breath.)

There were also a lot of people who convinced themselves that Clinton and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, so at that point a vote for Clinton validated, even rewarded the stealing.

Sanders also sounded a lot like Trump, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Obama-to-Trump switchers were one-time Sanders voters. Sanders and Trump were very much about restricting imports and immigrants, while Clinton was a (shudder) globalist.

[marshwiggle]

These people exercised their right to write-in their spoiler candidate of choice.

M.

But why???? This is like the people they interviewed in the U.K. after the Brexit vote who didn't want to leave but voted for Brexit because they wanted to "send a message" to the government and were sure the "Remain" side would win anyway.

I understand "strategic" voting; i.e. voting for someone who is not your favouorite to keep the one you don't want from winning.  I also understand "voting your principles" where you feel registering your vote is more important than strategic voting. However, I don't remotely understand being OK with strategic voting but not doing it because "they're going to win anyway". That's ridiculously short-sighted and snowflakey.