2020 Presidential Election

[dudog84]

It’s hard to see how this moves the needle, at all. How many voters, Christian or otherwise, pay attention to the National Cathedral’s thoughts about Trump? I don’t know any mainline Protestants who see the National Cathedral as anything other than as a place to sightsee in DC. And many evangelicals (conservative denominations like the SBC and PCA) would find the National Cathedral’s positions inversely persuasive—they disagree with the mainline Episcopal Church on so much they just assume they are wrong until proven otherwise.

A letter of condemnation from the Southern Baptist Convention is newsworthy in the context of this thread. A letter of condemnation from a mainline Episcopal church is already priced in and doesn’t change anyone’s mind. The content of the letter itself is ground that’s already been covered in this thread.

Well, this explains why I haven't been in a church in decades.

[CameronBornAndBred]

At the beginning of this thread, JE asked who we would think would be the nominee. Some of us took the bait and voted in the poll, others (raising my hand) said it was far too early to even ponder an opinion.
Yet, many of us on both sides of that stance said that Warren would not be the one, in fact, not even close. (Again, raising my hand)

I'm putting my hand back down. She is going to be a legit candidate. I don't know if she could take out Trump, but she may very well be the one that the Dems assign the challenge to. If she isn't, she'll be one of the last two to bow out.

[Wander]

Many here have bemoaned the similar extremism in both parties, and I have usually responded with a gigantic eye roll and that "both sidesism" simply was not supported by any polling numbers or statistics. Well, ideas like that should be falsifiable. Here's my test:

If Marianne Williamson wins the Democratic nomination, I will admit I was wrong and that the two political parties are in more similar places than I thought. It's by no means a perfect analogy, but she's the closest thing the Democrats have to Trump. She's an outsider who the party elites want nothing to do with and who is basing a campaign almost solely around appeals to emotion. She openly disdains things like "plans". She has dog whistles to dark parts the American electorate (my interpretation anyway – I thought she threw out a couple lines to anti-vaxxers). I wouldn't be surprised if people start talking conspiracy theories about her as a Trump plant the way some were wildly speculating Trump as a Clinton plant.

[JNort]

FiveThirtyEight on which candidates have held the floor tonight in terms of number of words spoken...as of 9:30 PM EST.

CANDIDATE WORDS SPOKEN
Bernie Sanders 1,680
–
Elizabeth Warren 1,612
–
Pete Buttigieg 1,188
–
Tim Ryan 1,155
–
Steve Bullock 1,150
–
John Delaney 1,148
–
Amy Klobuchar 1,057
–
John Hickenlooper 899
–
Beto O’Rourke 860
–
Marianne Williamson 661
–

Here is the amount of time they spoke:

Warren 18:11

Sanders 17:31

Mayor Pete 14:09

Bullock 10:44

Klobuchar 10:44

Beto 10:44

Delaney 10:24

Ryan 9:38

Williamson 8:53

Hickenlooper 8:37


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...265197568?s=01

[mattman91]

Have we had a serious candidate for one of the party nominations that served in the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Is Buttigieg the first? Evan McMullin ran as an independent in 2016 and he was CIA but I'm not sure I'd characterize him as serious.

His commentary on what it's been like to be an Afghanistan veteran is entirely unique..don't remember that perspective brought to any of the last few presidential cycles. The targeting of veterans by for-profit colleges...well, I didn't even know that it was a thing but it doesn't surprise me.

Does Tulsi Gabbard count?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Does Tulsi Gabbard count?

Gabbard reminds me of Danny Chung on Veep.

[JasonEvans]

Is fact checking allowed here?

If you think you have something to add that advances the conversation about who will win in a non-partisan way, that is always allowed. Beyond that mandate, you should tread carefully. As i have said in the past, if you want to run a post by me before posting it, feel free to PM me or email me at JasonDukeEvans at gmail.

[OldPhiKap]

OPK quick take:

Bernie, Warren, and Mayor Pete safely move on.

Hickenlooper and Klobuchar should look into plane tickets home.

O’Rourke is seriously not ready for prime time (again). His soufflé has collapsed.

Delaney, Bullock and Ryan all spoke well enough for the moderate wing — in a room that didn’t want to hear it. All three probably cancel each other out and struggle to move on. (Ryan had my favorite line of the night — “you don’t have to yell, Bernie”).

Williamson actually got some of the best applause lines — May be just wacky enough to pick up a nudge and move on but would not bet on it.

Other hot take: Warren’s slap to Delaney about “why would folks run to tell us what we can’t do” got great applause, but is what makes the progressive wing a risky choice for the Dems. The folks in the room may not care about the cost or practicality of what she and Bernie propose — but I think the general electorate and the crucial swing voters do.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

OPK quick take:

Bernie, Warren, and Mayor Pete safely move on.

Hickenlooper and Klobuchar should look into plane tickets home.

O’Rourke is seriously not ready for prime time (again). His soufflé has collapsed.

Delaney, Bullock and Ryan all spoke well enough for the moderate wing — in a room that didn’t want to hear it. All three probably cancel each other out and struggle to move on. (Ryan had my favorite line of the night — “you don’t have to yell, Bernie”).

Williamson actually got some of the best applause lines — May be just wacky enough to pick up a nudge and move on but would not bet on it.

Other hot take: Warren’s slap to Delaney about “why would folks run to tell us what we can’t do” got great applause, but is what makes the progressive wing a risky choice for the Dems. The folks in the room may not care about the cost or practicality of what she and Bernie propose — but I think the general electorate and the crucial swing voters do.

Yes, but again, the "safe" bey hasn't proven that safe lately. Gore, Hillary, or even Mitt were considered "safe" moderates.

[OldPhiKap]

Yes, but again, the "safe" bey hasn't proven that safe lately. Gore, Hillary, or even Mitt were considered "safe" moderates.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The last true ideologue to run as the Democratic nominee, at least in my mind, was McGovern. Who got crushed. The last two real Rep ideologues to run in my mind were Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater got slaughtered. Reagan won, but I think any Rep would have beaten Carter in '80.

Do you think that Warren or Bernie would beat Trump in the swing-y states of PA, OH, FL, MI, or WI? Or put states like GA or maybe even TX into playI am not convinced they would. (Pretty sure, by contrast, that Biden is ahead of Trump in most if not all of those states FWIW).

Who knows. But the progressive/ideological versus centrist/pragmatist battle will be fascinating to watch play out.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The last true ideologue to run as the Democratic nominee, at least in my mind, was McGovern. Who got crushed. The last two real Rep ideologues to run in my mind were Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater got slaughtered. Reagan won, but I think any Rep would have beaten Carter in '80.

Do you think that Warren or Bernie would beat Trump in the swing-y states of PA, OH, FL, MI, or WI? I am not convinced they would.

Oh, I don't know. Just noting that the safe choice hasn't played out well.

I think Bernie would have a shot of winning over blue collar midwesterners - his message is really geared towards them if they can stomach the labels associated with it.

[alteran]

I'm not buying the white women poll. If Trump did not lose them on the Access Hollywood tape, then what has occurred since more likely to lose them?

Do you really want (or need) a list? :-)

More seriously— one, or two, or three, or six things you can rationalize. At some point you reach a point where it can pierce your natural inclinations to cut one party/candidate or another slack. This is a technique routinely deployed in modern American politics— pile on accusations (often regardless of merit) and let the accumulation drag the person down.

The thing is, Trump self-piles.

Trump has defied political gravity so effectively that it’s easy to believe that it no longer exists. But this may be evidence that it still does— at least enough to matter.

That being said, going back to the original article— as interesting and intriguing as that article is, once the phrase, “now, it’s only one poll, but” gets written, you can safely stop reading.

[PackMan97]

Yes, but again, the "safe" bey hasn't proven that safe lately. Gore, Hillary, or even Mitt were considered "safe" moderates.

I know the intent of this thread is not to rehash old elections, but quite often the "safe" bet is usually just the devil we know and is ignoring very significant flaws in a character. Low personality in Gore. Massively unpopular for Hillary. RINO status for Romney that fails to excite the base. I see all of them as the "easy" choice much more than the safe choice. It's like the old saying, "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM"...well sure, but eventually IBM got passed and then lapped a few times. With these safe picks, folks are trying not to fail instead of trying to win.

I'm not saying you go for an extreme candidate, but I am saying that these safe picks are usually more willfully ignoring their downside.

[alteran]

I doubt Trump will actually participate in debate. I mean in the election.

My guess is he will. The perception will be that he is significantly behind (and he will be, except that no one but 538 will be accounting for the Electoral College properly). Behind means you debate if you can.

Plus, even though skipping the debate might be a smart tactical reality, in the battle between reality and personal ego, my money’s on Trump’s ego. He wants cameras. And in all honesty, going with his political instincts, getting in front of cameras and winging it has worked well for him, and made fools of most of us who thought we understood politics.

[bundabergdevil]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The last true ideologue to run as the Democratic nominee, at least in my mind, was McGovern. Who got crushed. The last two real Rep ideologues to run in my mind were Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater got slaughtered. Reagan won, but I think any Rep would have beaten Carter in '80.

Do you think that Warren or Bernie would beat Trump in the swing-y states of PA, OH, FL, MI, or WI? Or put states like GA or maybe even TX into playI am not convinced they would. (Pretty sure, by contrast, that Biden is ahead of Trump in most if not all of those states FWIW).

Who knows. But the progressive/ideological versus centrist/pragmatist battle will be fascinating to watch play out.

I’d say yes in PA, OH, MI, and WI. No in FL, GA, and TX. I’d argue their economic populism, anti-corporate message and wariness about trade deals would play very well with blue collar workers hit hard by globalization. IMO, their messaging on these areas isn’t too far from Trump. The delivery and solution, maybe, but not the message.

Both Bernie and Warren did a decent job of discussing how corporate profit models in a globalized world leave domestic workers high and dry. That dog definitely hunts in the rust belt and Midwest.

In defense —- Sanders voters defecting to Trump were greater than his margin of victory in PA, WI, and MI.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

[bundabergdevil]

My guess is he will. The perception will be that he is significantly behind (and he will be, except that no one but 538 will be accounting for the Electoral College properly). Behind means you debate if you can.

Plus, even though skipping the debate might be a smart tactical reality, in the battle between reality and personal ego, my money’s on Trump’s ego. He wants cameras. And in all honesty, going with his political instincts, getting in front of cameras and winging it has worked well for him, and made fools of most of us who thought we understood politics.

Yeah, I’d be interested in hearing a defense of not participating, which would be unusual.

[Jeffrey]

I think last night’s largest winners were not in attendance. IMO, Biden and Trump were the largest winners and Warren also won.

[mkirsh]

Yeah, I’d be interested in hearing a defense of not participating, which would be unusual.

I can easily see him saying the “crooked/biased/fake/unfair” mainstream anchors/networks won’t give him a level playing field and he is better suited to delivering his message to his people at campaign rallies. Remember Candidate Trump was a frequent CNN guest, but he seems to have become increasingly insular. I think his voters share those concerns about media, and his strategy to date seems to be motivating his base rather than (or even maybe at the expense of) picking up swing voters. I actually believe he will skip debates (and I’m even more convinced he will make a big show about participating vs not).

[alteran]

Well, this explains why I haven't been in a church in decades.

You have that in common with many “religious Christian evangelical” voters.

Christian evangelical voters are a self-identified group. It is merely an identity, a box people check off on an exit poll which we assume means one thing, but probably means another.

A while back I read a fascinating article in which they dug into specifics. (Cannot find right now, feel free to ding me for lack of receipts.) The number of people who check that box that say they have attended church less than three times in the last year is something like 60%. I’m not trying to judge people, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that if that’s what floats your boat— but that ain’t religious. It flies in the face of evangelism.

Other groups attended once or twice a month. Weekly attenders were vastly outnumbered.

The common perception, though, is that these “Christian evangelical voters” are sitting with good posture in church every single Sunday, going out and voting based on religious conviction and faith. The perception is largely a myth, or at least misunderstood.

This is a tribal identity that many voters assume that, at best, is only tangentially explained by the words “Christian Evangelical.”

Frankly, I’d bet that less than 20% of those people can even correctly define what a Christian evangelical is. As long as we try to understand what is going on with that bloc in terms of Christian evangelism, or even Christianity, we are misunderstanding what is going on.

[OldPhiKap]

I can easily see him saying the “crooked/biased/fake/unfair” mainstream anchors/networks won’t give him a level playing field and he is better suited to delivering his message to his people at campaign rallies. Remember Candidate Trump was a frequent CNN guest, but he seems to have become increasingly insular. I think his voters share those concerns about media, and his strategy to date seems to be motivating his base rather than (or even maybe at the expense of) picking up swing voters. I actually believe he will skip debates (and I’m even more convinced he will make a big show about participating vs not).

He did exactly this during the 2016 Primary, when he declared the moderator panel unfair and skipped a debate. He instead held a rally and promised to donate the funds to military families IIRC. And it worked. Trump's hardcore base agrees with Trump that the press is the enemy of the people, and Fox would cover the rally.

Trump has already tweeted in the last month that Chris Wallace, Bret Baer and FoxNews generally are all unfair to him. What moderators would he accept that have a remote chance of being approved by the other side?

Trump has very rarely held honest-to-goodness press conferences, opting instead to choose the questions he wishes to answer as he walks to and from the helicopter. I just don't see a debate with a real moderator, and an opponent like prosecutor Kamala Harris for example, going well for Trump and I don't see where he would want to subject himself to it. He can just hold a rally and Tweet nasty things, and then have his supportive news outlets echo the message.

I do agree, though, that a Rose Garden strategy is tough if you are behind. The question may be whether Trump really believes polls that tell him that, or does he conclude that they are all fake news?