2020 Elections

[dismalist]

Already? By the students, yes, but it needs to be paid back to who they borrowed it from; or should the government just tell banks to eat the loss? That will certainly make government loan guarantees in the future worth their weight in rabbit pellets.

We're quickly entering territory about which I know very little, so I'll gladly defer to those in the know. But my understanding is that the Federal Direct Student Loan Program is (1) directly administered by the federal government, and thus directly lends the money to students (in other words, it's already spent) and (2) is currently worth about $1 trillion.

Marsh is right. While the money has already been spent, it was loaned; thus it must be paid back. The only question is who will pay it back -- to banks, to the government, to whomever. Who whom? :-)

For perspective, from thebalance.com:

The Iraq War was a military conflict that lasted seven years, from 2003 to 2011, and cost $1.06 trillion.

So the student debt is equal to the cost of the Iraq war. Would the same people who consider that amount of student loan forgiveness a bargain consider the Iraq war to be similarly inexpensive?

Interestingly, the Iraq war, too, was financed by debt. The similarity in order of magnitude is merely chance. In both cases, however, future individuals or generations pay off the loans. One can argue about who in the future should pay off the loan.

So, both debt loads are sitting there. What shall we do with them?

[spork]

Poll shows Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in a statistical tie with her Democratic opponent:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/483544-poll-susan-collins-in-statistical-tie-with-democratic-challenger.

[Economizer]

Is it possible that our President and a candidate, Mr. Bloomberg, are New York guys capable of doing a "dog and pony" show on the 2020 electorate?  If so, is it likely?

[writingprof]

Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

[nebo113]

Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

45* will become 46*

[polly_mer]

Looks like we have a nominee

We don't have a nominee.  I came here specifically to complain about the media outlets that are bad at critical thinking that involves more than just one number.

The official rules indicate that someone has to get 1991 delegates before June to win the nomination outright.  So far, the projected-including-Nevada results (AKA almost no delegates awarded when the number needed is almost 2000) are:

34 Sanders
23 Buttigieg
8 Warren
7 Klobuchar
6 Biden

That's not a commanding lead with just one person still in the race.  Any reports to the contrary are people who don't seem to understand the rules of the game.  South Carolina alone has 54 pledged delegates that will be divvied up in the coming week.  Super Tuesday is 30% of the overall delegates.

Calling a winner after Super Tuesday may be appropriate.  Calling it now indicates some flawed critical thinking based on something other than the context and numbers that matter.

[mahagonny]

Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack in 1955, lived another 17 years. Remember when everyone thought Dick Cheney was a goner?

A few months ago the vultures were circling Bernie's campaign. He's got some kind of connection with voters that gets underestimated.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/30/bernie-sanders-2020-election-decline-228755

[Parasaurolophus]

Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.

Calling a winner after Super Tuesday may be appropriate.  Calling it now indicates some flawed critical thinking based on something other than the context and numbers that matter.

I mostly agree, especially since Super Tuesday is so close. I was especially consternated by the media declaring a victory in Nevada with just 4% of precincts reporting. I imagine it was based on exit polling, and that polling seems to have borne out so far, but still. The counters got to 50% last night, and that was a perfectly fine time for the call to be made.

[marshwiggle]

Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.

In his favour, Sanders doesn't have the same contempt for white working class voters that many on the far left do. However, his advertised solution, i.e. "socialism", is something that any of them old enough to remember much of the last century realize is no improvement over the status quo in the long run. If he could back off on the extreme left talking points he might succeed, but if not, I don't think it's likely.

[Ruralguy]

I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.

[ciao_yall]

Looks like we have a nominee . . . unless he dies between now and the election, which is quite possible.  I'd love to know how confident you all are about Sanders' chances in the general.  It will help me calibrate my own level of fear.

(At a glance, and as of today, I think he'll beat Trump.)

Possible, but unlikely. Certainly less like than Trumputin's chances of dying in the same period of time.

I think his chances in the general are very good--as long as all the old people and centrists swallow their own medicine, hold their noses, and vote for him. But it's possible they'll decide that beating Trump is no longer their first priority. If that happens, then I think his chances are still good, but it'll be a much tougher election, and the sooner he's out of primary mode and out on the general stump, the better.

In his favour, Sanders doesn't have the same contempt for white working class voters that many on the far left do. However, his advertised solution, i.e. "socialism", is something that any of them old enough to remember much of the last century realize is no improvement over the status quo in the long run. If he could back off on the extreme left talking points he might succeed, but if not, I don't think it's likely.

Also in his favor - Russian bots.

[mamselle]

Yes. They've decided he will be a) the easiest for Trump to trounce; b) the closest theoretically to their version of a communist world view; c) the most fun to impugn with signs of meddling.

Or some combination of those.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

But Russia is not communist any more, and under Putin it has had nothing even resembling a communist worldview. So (b) is out.

Remember, though, that the reports come from anonymous sources in the intelligence community. We can't vet the information, nor can we assess their trustworthiness (and again, remember what Comey did to Clinton: they can't be trusted). It could just as easily be Trumputin supporters in the intelligence community flailing about trying to damage the person who looks like they'll be the nominee as early as they can, to see if the narrative will stick. The administration just finished doing this to Joe Biden, remember.

It seems to me that the perception of Russian help--especially in the form of a troll army--can only damage the Democratic party, and Sanders in particular (because people are happy to conflate everyday internet nastiness with the candidate himself, thanks to a narrative that's stuck). And it doesn't even have to be true to be damaging, and to help Trump both-sides his way through the election. If we accept that Russia helped Trump in the last election, then I'm inclined to think we should accept that's still the primary goal. And, TBH, helping Sanders is probably win-win for them anyway (provided they're thinking he'll be a net positive for them)--if nobody finds out, then either their puppet wins or their benign candidate wins. If someone finds out, then it helps the puppet.

So, either way, I can only shrug.

[mamselle]

Points taken.

I can't quite shrug off the worry, though.

M.

[polly_mer]

I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

My family caught an interview with Steyer recently and thought he had some very good things to say.  Indeed, we were starting to root against the interviewer who was clearly pressuring Steyer to drop out before getting to the states in which Steyer is polling at real numbers, like South Carolina.

Personally, I'm hoping for either someone I like to pull ahead or to have a contested Democratic convention to let the adults (not at all the same as physical age) sort out someone who will be a good leader for the country instead of someone who doesn't have a majority even among the Democrats.

I really, really want to be able to vote for the person I want to win in November instead of having to vote for Trump because the Democrats can't get it together and pick someone who is actually worse than Trump by the available information in the areas I care about including national defense and global security.  Someone who is proud of voting against funding our military has no business being commander in chief.