2020 Presidential Election

[alteran]

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

Amen, brother/sister. People keep saying that centrism pays huge dividends, but you have to ignore so much of the actual results.

[Troublemaker]

If there were pie on the line, what would the bet be?

That Trump will skip A debate? (Which he has done before). Or that he won't participate in ANY debates?

Because if anyone thinks the latter, you're on for a pie bet.

[alteran]

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.

So, moderation isn’t enough to save you without significant charisma.

Not sure it’s as big a factor as some are arguing it is, in that case.

[Bluedog]

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.

I believe I've followed things somewhat closely, but certainly not super closely, and had never heard of Williamson until last night (that was the first debate I watched). Her name recongition is simply nowhere near where Trump was at. Plus, we've had a lot more successful businesspeople transition into politics than authors do it. So, I don't view them as equivalents because Williamson has such an uphill battle as nobody knows who she is. With that said, in watching the debate last night, Williamson got possibly the largest applauses from the audience last night. I remember it on two separate occassions where I'm like "wow, these people LOVE her!" Of course, the audience is likely not the same as the electorate but represents the most passionate Democractic base.

[OldPhiKap]

Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. She did not lose because she was a centrist IMO. (I think Jason has asked us not to relitigate the reasons, so I won't).

Gore got half a million votes more than W, and then lost 5-4 at the Supreme Court. Again, I do not think he lost because he was a centrist.

Mitt was painted as an elitist, and the core message from the Reps that year -- Obamacare is bad -- was ineffective coming from the one Republican who had actually implemented a similar system successfully while governor of Massachusetts.

I don't think ideology had anything to do with any of their losses, but reasonable minds of course can differ.

And again, of the three ideologues to run as candidates in the last sixty years, two (Goldwater on the right and McGovern on the left) were absolutely crushed. Only Reagan won, and almost any Republican would have beaten Carter in '80. (I would not consider W an ideologue although I guess there are some that would).

[Troublemaker]

Amen, brother/sister. People keep saying that centrism pays huge dividends, but you have to ignore so much of the actual results.

Yeah, I actually disagree with the conventional wisdom here and elsewhere. I think it's easier for "moderate left" voters to turn out to vote against Trump than the "far left" voters. (Note: I don't believe this was previously true until this current age of widespread segmentation of media, in which a "far left" voter can completely curate exclusively "far left" media sources. Which, to be fair, they would argue the "moderate Dems" do as well.) You almost have to have backed an anti-establishment candidate (on either the right or left) previously to really understand. Many on the "far left" view the establishment or "corporate Dems" to be as big a problem as the Republicans.

Also, Warren and Sanders might be able to compete for any Rust Belt voters that previously voted D but went for Trump. Some analysts have described Warren's recently released trade plans as Trump-like. (Whether that's good or bad or even accurate).

Also, generally speaking, I think there's too much focus here and elsewhere on being "moderate" or "centrist" when most people can't even agree on what that means. For example, there's this apparent meme that if the Ds can just avoid nominating Warren or Sanders, then they have nominated a "centrist" candidate. Does that really hold up to scrutiny if you see what positions the D candidates have taken through the first 2 debates? How do they compare to the Clintons (Bill and Hillary), Obama, and Gore?

[Jeffrey]

Yeah, I actually disagree with the conventional wisdom here and elsewhere.

Do you believe Warren and Sanders have as good of a chance beating Trump as Biden?

[rasputin]

You weren't coming out of a Giant in SE PA about an hour ago with a box of wine and a rotisserie chicken were you?

No, but I going into a Schnucks in eastern Missouri. Without the box of wine or rotisserie chicken.

[Troublemaker]

If Warren or Sanders wins the nomination (realistically, Warren, imo; Bernie had his moment in 2016, and it has passed), the phrase "checks and balances" is going to be hammered to death by the mainstream media. Accurately, I might add. The executive branch is powerful, but the legislative and judicial branches can restrain it, which is why -- to pick an easy example -- Trump can't build his southern wall.

Basically, in November 2020, I would rather have a fully energized progressive base, perhaps a surprising youth vote (cancel student debt!), and constant reminders to "moderate Dems" who can't stand Trump of the basic civics lesson of "checks and balances" than any other formula, imo.

Do you believe Warren and Sanders have as good of a chance beating Trump as Biden?

Yes.

My concern would be with Warren and Sanders' charisma. (I also think Biden has some personal drawbacks unrelated to political positioning; we'll see if he can have a good debate tonight, which he needs, imo.)

I believe if every candidate were equally charismatic, the formula I described above would be the best one.

[CameronBlue]

If Warren or Sanders wins the nomination (realistically, Warren, imo; Bernie had his moment in 2016, and it has passed), the phrase "checks and balances" is going to be hammered to death by the mainstream media. Accurately, I might add. The executive branch is powerful, but the legislative and judicial branches can restrain it, which is why -- to pick an easy example -- Trump can't build his southern wall.

Basically, in November 2020, I would rather have a fully energized progressive base, perhaps a surprising youth vote (cancel student debt!), and constant reminders to "moderate Dems" who can't stand Trump of the basic civics lesson of "checks and balances" than any other formula, imo.



Yes.

My concern would be with Warren and Sanders' charisma. (I also think Biden has some personal drawbacks unrelated to political positioning; we'll see if he can have a good debate tonight, which he needs, imo.)

I believe if every candidate were equally charismatic, the formula I described above would be the best one.

Do you believe Warren and Sanders have as good of a chance beating Trump as Biden?

Sorry to jump into the middle of this subthread but Warren has surprised me. Sanders will not be able to effectively shed the socialist label, which greatly limits his appeal. I think Trump pummels him on that one.

But Warren has proven to be tougher on the debate stage and on the stump than I had thought she would be. She has been castigated as being too shrill by some but actually I think her passion for the issues is beginning to show through; she's nothing if not relentless. Further, to draw a gross comparison, she is Paul Ryan's mirror image as a policy wonk, at least when it comes to the banking industry and its role as the architect of the 2008 financial crisis. I think that gives her an edge and a way to work herself in to the consciousness of the rust belt and rural conservative voting blocs. The vast majority of the electorate may not be able to accurately define a "troubled asset" but they know it's bad and I think the scars remain. (I accumulated a bunch of investment property via 95% or better LTV mortgages in 2006 with no points down because I was white, had a little money and can balance a checkbook; I know many people who were burned however) She's survived Trump's silliness with the Pocahontas label; she's thicker-skinned than people realize. She needs to package her message better and it may depend on how willing she is to get into the gutter along with Trump, but so far she seems to be a pretty decent street fighter with hard data to back up many of her key talking points.

[Acymetric]

Yeah, I actually disagree with the conventional wisdom here and elsewhere. I think it's easier for "moderate left" voters to turn out to vote against Trump than the "far left" voters. (Note: I don't believe this was previously true until this current age of widespread segmentation of media, in which a "far left" voter can completely curate exclusively "far left" media sources. Which, to be fair, they would argue the "moderate Dems" do as well.) You almost have to have backed an anti-establishment candidate (on either the right or left) previously to really understand. Many on the "far left" view the establishment or "corporate Dems" to be as big a problem as the Republicans.

Also, Warren and Sanders might be able to compete for any Rust Belt voters that previously voted D but went for Trump. Some analysts have described Warren's recently released trade plans as Trump-like. (Whether that's good or bad or even accurate).

Also, generally speaking, I think there's too much focus here and elsewhere on being "moderate" or "centrist" when most people can't even agree on what that means. For example, there's this apparent meme that if the Ds can just avoid nominating Warren or Sanders, then they have nominated a "centrist" candidate. Does that really hold up to scrutiny if you see what positions the D candidates have taken through the first 2 debates? How do they compare to the Clintons (Bill and Hillary), Obama, and Gore?

I think this post is spot on. In addition, I think grouping voters and candidates as "center" and "far-left" confuses things, because this stuff is happening on multiple axes. At the very least, to truly understand where things line up it needs to be split into "social" and "economic" (with medical care falling somewhere kind of in between). Realistically it needs to be broken down even further by specific issues, but this at least gets us closer to a useful picture. I won't list all the candidates, but here is a sampling and where they land on those spectrums (let's not quibble over the labels, I'm just trying to speak relatively. If you think what I label as "center" is really "left" and what I call "center-left" is really "far-left" just mentally adjust as you read...it doesn't change the candidates position in relation to each other which is what I'm trying to get at). It is also important to pay attention to which part is the central plank of the campaign (if someone is center-left socially, far-left economically, but their campaign is based primarily on the economics that gives you something very different than the same positions but with the central plank being the social aspect). I say all this without advocating for any position on the spectrum over any other, just trying to help identify what those positions are. I only listed candidates from last night since they are fresh on my mind, anyone I didn't list either doesn't strike me as a legitimate candidate or I don't feel I know their positions well enough to fairly characterize them.

Sanders: Far left on economics, center-left on social issues. Primary focus: Economics

Warren: Far left on economics, far left on social issues. Seems to focus strongly on both, I'm not sure how to say which one would be her priority.

Ryan: Center or center-left socially, center-left economically

Buttigieg: Center-left on economics, Left on social issues

Delaney: Center on economics and social issues


The appetite for some far-left policies is much stronger than others (some have widespread support, some are widely panned). Just saying "far left" candidate or "centrist" candidate ignores the important granularity here. Some of Trumps policies could reasonably be construed as "far-left" for example (obviously not his social policies).

Sorry to jump into the middle of this subthread but Warren has surprised me. Sanders will not be able to effectively shed the socialist label, which greatly limits his appeal. I think Trump pummels him on that one.

But Warren has proven to be tougher on the debate stage and on the stump than I had thought she would be. She has been castigated as being too shrill by some but actually I think her passion for the issues is beginning to show through; she's nothing if not relentless. Further, to draw a gross comparison, she is Paul Ryan's mirror image as a policy wonk, at least when it comes to the banking industry and its role as the architect of the 2008 financial crisis. I think that gives her an edge and a way to work herself in to the consciousness of the rust belt and rural conservative voting blocs. The vast majority of the electorate may not be able to accurately define a "troubled asset" but they know it's bad and I think the scars remain. (I accumulated a bunch of investment property via 95% or better LTV mortgages in 2006 with no points down because I was white, had a little money and can balance a checkbook; I know many people who were burned however) She's survived Trump's silliness with the Pocahontas label; she's thicker-skinned than people realize. She needs to package her message better and it may depend on how willing she is to get into the gutter along with Trump, but so far she seems to be a pretty decent street fighter with hard data to back up many of her key talking points.

I thought Warren came off much stronger in this debate than the last one. Not in regards to messaging or policies, but just in terms of the "presence" or whatever that she gave off. More...authoritative or something.

[Indoor66]

It seems the political desk has too many pigeon holes to permit meaningful discussion.

[rasputin]

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

Not participating in a debate as the nominee is unthinkable. Kinda like refusing to release your income tax returns.

[Wander]

But Warren has proven to be tougher on the debate stage and on the stump than I had thought she would be. She has been castigated as being too shrill by some but actually I think her passion for the issues is beginning to show through; she's nothing if not relentless. Further, to draw a gross comparison, she is Paul Ryan's mirror image as a policy wonk, at least when it comes to the banking industry and its role as the architect of the 2008 financial crisis. I think that gives her an edge and a way to work herself in to the consciousness of the rust belt and rural conservative voting blocs. The vast majority of the electorate may not be able to accurately define a "troubled asset" but they know it's bad and I think the scars remain. (I accumulated a bunch of investment property via 95% or better LTV mortgages in 2006 with no points down because I was white, had a little money and can balance a checkbook; I know many people who were burned however) She's survived Trump's silliness with the Pocahontas label; she's thicker-skinned than people realize. She needs to package her message better and it may depend on how willing she is to get into the gutter along with Trump, but so far she seems to be a pretty decent street fighter with hard data to back up many of her key talking points.

I agree. Her rejection of the "socialist" label and messaging of "hey, I'm just trying to make capitalism work, not destroy it" would be much better received by the general electorate than Sanders' rhetoric, even if their policies are similar at the end of the day. Not my preferred candidate, but I think I underestimated her "electability". If she can avoid stumbling through trying to prove how "woke" she is as she has in the past, I think she would have a decent chance (that said, I think the Medicare stuff would still be a problem and ultimately prevent her from beating Trump).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Not participating in a debate as the nominee is unthinkable. Kinda like refusing to release your income tax returns.

On a sidenote "Rethink the Unthinkable" could be a Trump slogan that both sides would get behind - albeit for wildly different reasons.

[dudog84]

On a sidenote "Rethink the Unthinkable" could be a Trump slogan that both sides would get behind - albeit for wildly different reasons.

Post of the day. Perhaps we should close the thread for 24 hours in appreciation.

[Rich]

I thought Warren came off much stronger in this debate than the last one. Not in regards to messaging or policies, but just in terms of the "presence" or whatever that she gave off. More...authoritative or something.

Is the word you're searching for "presidential"?

[Acymetric]

Is the word you're searching for "presidential"?

Not really. Partly because that word means so many different things to different people.

[Wander]

Reading through some post-debate articles, I was reminded that the candidates (Ryan, Delaney) on the receiving end of Sanders' and Warren's zing moments ("I wrote the damn bill" and "I don't know why anyone goes through all the trouble of running for President") are actually two different people. I had honestly forgotten that. I know they were just meaningless zings in the grand scheme of things, but this thing needs to narrow.

[Acymetric]

Reading through some post-debate articles, I was reminded that the candidates (Ryan, Delaney) on the receiving end of Sanders' and Warren's zing moments ("I wrote the damn bill" and "I don't know why anyone goes through all the trouble of running for President") are actually two different people. I had honestly forgotten that. I know they were just meaningless zings in the grand scheme of things, but this thing needs to narrow.

Of the two, I think Ryan does a better job of defining himself by his own policies (while still running against the further left policies of Warren and Sanders). Delaney's platform seems to mostly be "I'm Not Warren or Sanders" which only takes you so far at the primary stage.