2020 Presidential Election

[Bob Green]

This article in The Atlantic counters the Biden is the safest nominee to oppose Trump theory by stating he is the riskiest:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lation/605134/

The article expresses concern a Biden nomination would trigger a deflation of enthusiasm resulting in poor voter turnout.

I’m not sure I buy it but it is an interesting read.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This article in The Atlantic counters the Biden is the safest nominee to oppose Trump theory by stating he is the riskiest:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lation/605134/

The article expresses concern a Biden nomination would trigger a deflation of enthusiasm resulting in poor voter turnout.

I’m not sure I buy it but it is an interesting read.

A lot of younger voters I interact with have this exact sentiment. It's the Hillary vote all over again. Making the "safe" pick over a candidate more likely to rally the troops.

Those same voters also are somewhat resigned to Biden being the nominee for what it's worth.

Democratic party seems to frequently repeat mistakes.

[Bob Green]

A lot of younger voters I interact with have this exact sentiment. It's the Hillary vote all over again. Making the "safe" pick over a candidate more likely to rally the troops.

Those same voters also are somewhat resigned to Biden being the nominee for what it's worth.

Democratic party seems to frequently repeat mistakes.

I am reluctant to buy into the theory because I remain convinced a Progressive nominee will get crushed in the general election.

The article I linked above says voters in six key swing states prefer a more moderate nominee. I do agree voter turnout will be critical in November.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am reluctant to buy into the theory because I remain convinced a Progressive nominee will get crushed in the general election.

The article I linked above says voters in six key swing states prefer a more moderate nominee. I do agree voter turnout will be critical in November.

It's a bit of a double edged sword I suppose. Banking that the progressive wing of your party will simply vote against Trump regardless.

[budwom]

It's a bit of a double edged sword I suppose. Banking that the progressive wing of your party will simply vote against Trump regardless.

It really is a double edged sword...maybe the progressives show up with Biden as a candidate, maybe not...one pure guess on my part is that since a lot of progressives are young, and since young people historically vote less frequently than older people, a lot of the youth vote won't show up for Biden...on the other hand, while older moderates may prefer Biden, their views on Trump might be enough to get them to vote for a progressive since older folks vote more frequently. But it's a crap shoot.

[Stray Gator]

It really is a double edged sword...maybe the progressives show up with Biden as a candidate, maybe not...one pure guess on my part is that since a lot of progressives are young, and since young people historically vote less frequently than older people, a lot of the youth vote won't show up for Biden...on the other hand, while older moderates may prefer Biden, their views on Trump might be enough to get them to vote for a progressive since older folks vote more frequently. But it's a crap shoot.

The Democrats are undoubtedly confronted with a difficult dilemma:

If they nominate Biden, and he succeeds in avoiding a major mishap during the campaign, I believe he is likely to win because fewer of the "older moderates" who regard themselves as Independents or Republicans will be sufficiently motivated by their opposition to dramatic change to turn out and help Trump win a second term, while more of the progressives who feel disappointed by the failure of their candidate to get the nomination will be motivated by their disaffection for Trump to turn out and help depose him. But the italicized condition is a critical assumption; and there's no doubt that Trump and the Republicans will make that a challenging task, by trying incessantly to provoke a misstep.

On the other hand, if the Democrats nominate a progressive candidate, and Trump avoids a catastrophic negative event during the campaign, I believe Trump will have an edge because we'll see large numbers of moderates -- not just the older ones -- who regard themselves as Independents or Republicans get off their sofas and hold their noses to vote for Trump, motivated by their fundamental antipathy towards the changes that the progressives are advocating. But again, the italicized condition is a critical assumption; and there's no doubt that progressives and the Democrats will do everything in their power to bring Trump down.

All of which leads me to reiterate the point I made earlier in this thread: That for most people, their decision will ultimately be prefaced by the question: "What are my options?" And in trying to predict how the "undecideds" will answer that question, I'll add another observation that I made earlier, which could render the Democrats' dilemma even more perplexing: There are a lot of people who are not drawn to Trump, but are being driven to him.

[OldPhiKap]

The Democrats are undoubtedly confronted with a difficult dilemma:

If they nominate Biden, and he succeeds in avoiding a major mishap during the campaign, I believe he is likely to win because fewer of the "older moderates" who regard themselves as Independents or Republicans will be sufficiently motivated by their opposition to dramatic change to turn out and help Trump win a second term, while more of the progressives who feel disappointed by the failure of their candidate to get the nomination will be motivated by their disaffection for Trump to turn out and help depose him. But the italicized condition is a critical assumption; and there's no doubt that Trump and the Republicans will make that a challenging task, by trying incessantly to provoke a misstep.

On the other hand, if the Democrats nominate a progressive candidate, and Trump avoids a catastrophic negative event during the campaign, I believe Trump will have an edge because we'll see large numbers of moderates -- not just the older ones -- who regard themselves as Independents or Republicans get off their sofas and hold their noses to vote for Trump, motivated by their fundamental antipathy towards the changes that the progressives are advocating. But again, the italicized condition is a critical assumption; and there's no doubt that progressives and the Democrats will do everything in their power to bring Trump down.

All of which leads me to reiterate the point I made earlier in this thread: That for most people, their decision will ultimately be prefaced by the question: "What are my options?" And in trying to predict how the "undecideds" will answer that question, I'll add another observation that I made earlier, which could render the Democrats' dilemma even more perplexing: There are a lot of people who are not drawn to Trump, but are being driven to him.

Well-stated as always.

I can make an argument for either wing to get the nomination, but at some point the Dems need to determine whether the polls showing Biden with the best chance to beat Trump in swing states are valid or not. Or, someone else needs to show they best Trump by reliable margins there. We can pick pre-convention polls apart, but campaigns and parties take them for a reason.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Well-stated as always.

I can make an argument for either wing to get the nomination, but at some point the Dems need to determine whether the polls showing Biden with the best chance to beat Trump in swing states are valid or not. Or, someone else needs to show they best Trump by reliable margins there. We can pick pre-convention polls apart, but campaigns and parties take them for a reason.

I completely agree in theory (as I often do). However, there is no central controlling force behind the Democratic Party - the grand poobahs of the party can do what they want but if a candidate they don't really support wins all of the primaries, they can't do too much about it. They can obviously throw their weight and dollars behind someone, which will definitely help, but it won't guarantee someone gets nominated. In 2016 the DNC tried to get involved and that really backfired. This time around, it might be a really good idea if there was something similar, but they are likely wary of a repeat of 2016.

To this point, it will be interesting to see if/when Obama gets involved. He has been dropping some hints but largely staying out of it.

[Phredd3]

To this point, it will be interesting to see if/when Obama gets involved. He has been dropping some hints but largely staying out of it.

I think it highly unlikely that Obama will actively involve himself until the Democratic Party coalesces around a nominee. Then he'll throw all his weight behind that person and do his best to whip up turnout. Getting involved before that would be a break from established norms, something Obama has normally been quite reluctant to do.

[dudog84]

Poll out today has Biden +6 in Iowa. Just over 2 weeks away.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

[pfrduke]

I found the NYT dual endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar fascinating. Not surprised that they chose Warren as the flag bearer for the progressive version of the party but very surprised they chose Klobuchar as the mainstream version of the party and also surprised that they went “IDK *shrug*” as to whether progressive vs mainstream was the right approach given the differences between the two.

[Bob Green]

...and also surprised that they went “IDK *shrug*” as to whether progressive vs mainstream was the right approach given the differences between the two.

Another indicator it is a monumental decision facing the Democratic Party, which wing can pull in the Independent and undecided vote?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Those wondering why Biden doesn't resonate with folks under 40:

Joe Biden calls game developers "little creeps" who make titles that "teach you how to kill"

https://www.techspot.com/news/83623-...reeps-who.html

[budwom]

Another indicator it is a monumental decision facing the Democratic Party, which wing can pull in the Independent and undecided vote?

It's good to keep in mind how reliable conventional wisdom has been of late. Almost impossible to predict what'll happen this year. Polls hardly clarify things. But we'll know a whole lot in March.

[JNort]

Those wondering why Biden doesn't resonate with folks under 40:

Joe Biden calls game developers "little creeps" who make titles that "teach you how to kill"

https://www.techspot.com/news/83623-...reeps-who.html

He is considered out of touch entirely by most younger voters and he represents what's been wrong with the party as whole since the late 80s. Younger voters (under 40) have begun to realize that the overton window has shifted so far to the right that these "moderate" dems are nothing more than old school centrists. Having a real democrat again is what they want.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

He is considered out of touch entirely by most younger voters and he represents what's been wrong with the party as whole since the late 80s. Younger voters (under 40) have begun to realize that the overton window has shifted so far to the right that these "moderate" dems are nothing more than old school centrists. Having a real democrat again is what they want.

Exactly. Which I why I think there's a real conflict between a nominee like Biden who can win some centrist or independent voters, versus a candidate who can get out the younger and more liberal voters.

As I say this, it makes me think Mayor Pete might actually be the ideal candidate, as his policies are more middle of the road, but his demographic skews younger and more liberal. He'd be a practical candidate for both ends of the party spectrum.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I found the NYT dual endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar fascinating. Not surprised that they chose Warren as the flag bearer for the progressive version of the party but very surprised they chose Klobuchar as the mainstream version of the party and also surprised that they went “IDK *shrug*” as to whether progressive vs mainstream was the right approach given the differences between the two.

I saw the second half of the show. I am a religious NYT reader and defender (though I occasionally throw my hands up at things they publish). I was very disappointed in the whole endeavor. Not making a choice was a cop-out. But the whole thing screamed of them trying to be the unifying voice of the Democratic party that we have been discussing on and off throughout this thread, then when push came to shove, they couldn't even get that right. They claim to be independent (which few people believe) and this was further proof that they are not. They also spoke frequently of electability, which, though a critical issue, should have beyond the scope of their conversations.

I am hoping to have time to make my way through the interviews as I think there is some interesting information in there. But I see this as a huge wasted opportunity and if anything, a step backwards.

[Bob Green]

Having a real democrat again is what they want.

Who is an example of a past real democrat?

Is the <40 crowd looking for another Bill Clinton? Being older (60), I associate democrat with LBJ or Henry “Scoop” Jackson or Sam Ervin. Jimmy Carter?

What’s a real democrat in 2020.

[dudog84]

He is considered out of touch entirely by most younger voters and he represents what's been wrong with the party as whole since the late 80s. Younger voters (under 40) have begun to realize that the overton window has shifted so far to the right that these "moderate" dems are nothing more than old school centrists. Having a real democrat again is what they want.

But does the rest of the country?

I also want to ask, what is a real democrat? I think the Ds are more diverse than the Rs. Hence the old saying 'herding cats', but this year they might be saved from themselves by their common opponent.

And are these "little creeps" going to come out and vote? Or will they be ensconced in their playing chairs, too deeply involved in a multi-player game and suddenly, oops, it's 7:15. Time for pizza!

Edit: Bob, you're too fast for me!

[bundabergdevil]

But does the rest of the country?

I also want to ask, what is a real democrat? I think the Ds are more diverse than the Rs. Hence the old saying 'herding cats', but this year they might be saved from themselves by their common opponent.

And are these "little creeps" going to come out and vote? Or will they be ensconced in their playing chairs, too deeply involved in a multi-player game and suddenly, oops, it's 7:15. Time for pizza!

Edit: Bob, you're too fast for me!

There’s an implicit assumption that because those “little creeps” are young, they’re Democrats. If gamer gate and some of the online deep fake stuff is any indication, the gamer/tech vote may trend other directions. The only data I’ve been able to find is below, which does suggest a sizable population of conservative gamers...that really shouldn’t be a surprise.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/us-gamers-political-views-detailed-in-new-study/1100-6432027/


Note that this is a 2015 survey so doesn’t reflect Trump.