2020 Presidential Election

[Acymetric]

I heard Carville the other night on CNN and he sounded nearly incoherent...not the best person to critique the party at this point, IMO, despite the fact they do have a lot to work on.

There is definitely a disconnect between the "this is how we won in 1992" crowd and the "new time, new solutions" crowd.

[budwom]

These primary battles are inherently messy. We'll just have to see how things settle, many different things can happen. Many prior assumptions may have to go out the window, just like record books on the day of the unc-Duke game.
But Joe clearly has a problem.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My business partner who watched the debates last night as an undecided came away all in for Amy. He even made a donation to her campaign.

This is the very definition of anecdotal evidence, but I asked if he thought she was most likely to beat Trump, or most likely to be the best president and he said "both," which I find reassuring. It turns my stomach to see people pre-emptively making concessions in the primary.

[Bostondevil]

One thing I will predict - if Joe Biden is not the nominee, there will be no in depth Congressional investigations of Hunter Biden and/or Burisma.

[cato]

He's up to about 10% nationally without appearing in a single debate because he is just spending on commercials like a drunken sailor. If Biden continues to falter, Bloomberg is going to get 20+% in several of the bigger Super Tuesday states. He's going to have delegates that could make a difference.

-Jason "I read somewhere that Bloomberg has already spent more on ads in California and Texas than all the other candidates (including Steyer) have spent in every other state combined" Evans

I’m getting a lot of direct mail/handout stuff and seeing a lot of signs for local races here in SoCal (I got my mail-in ballot on Thursday), but the only national candidate that I have seen make a concerted effort to get my eyeballs is Mike.

[dukebluesincebirth]

I wonder why people aren’t really taking Yang seriously? Too “far out” with talk of UBI?? I watched the debate last night and thought he offered some interesting, fresh perspectives on several issues. But his numbers just haven’t changed much. Interesting to me that in the last Republican primary, Republicans were willing to listen to what Donald Trump had to say, and gave him alot more than the time of day. But Democrats dismiss Yang’s non-traditional ideas rather swiftly. Does anyone think he could still make an unexpected rise in the future a la Trump, or probably going to drop out soon?? I’d like to hear more from him.

[cato]

I wonder why people aren’t really taking Yang seriously? Too “far out” with talk of UBI?? I watched the debate last night and thought he offered some interesting, fresh perspectives on several issues. But his numbers just haven’t changed much. Interesting to me that in the last Republican primary, Republicans were willing to listen to what Donald Trump had to say, and gave him alot more than the time of day. But Democrats dismiss Yang’s non-traditional ideas rather swiftly. Does anyone think he could still make an unexpected rise in the future a la Trump, or probably going to drop out soon?? I’d like to hear more from him.

I read an article that I cannot find right now that said Yang’s biggest issue was the perception that he is a one-issue candidate who is not otherwise prepared to be president.

[Nick]

I heard Carville the other night on CNN and he sounded nearly incoherent...not the best person to critique the party at this point, IMO, despite the fact they do have a lot to work on.

Vox caught up with him for a full interview. A sample:

Sean Illing
So your complaint is basically that the party has tacked too far to the left?

James Carville
They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen. And look, I don’t consider myself a moderate or a centrist. I’m a liberal. But not everything has to be on the left-right continuum. I love Warren’s day care plan just like I love Booker’s baby bonds. That’s the kind of stuff our candidates should explain and define clearly and repeatedly for voters and not get diverted by whatever the hell is in the air that day.

Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this s***. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message.

The real argument here is that some people think there’s a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, we’ll grow and excite them and we’ll win. But there’s a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly.

[Bostondevil]

I read an article that I cannot find right now that said Yang’s biggest issue was the perception that he is a one-issue candidate who is not otherwise prepared to be president.

I can offer some anecdotal evidence. My post-millennial sons were in the Yang Gang and they still like him, a lot. Over the Christmas holidays, I asked them to make their case. They proceeded to talk about all his good ideas. Then I started asking them about his stance on issues that are closer to my heart. By the end, they were conceding that maybe he wasn't ready to be POTUS but that people should listen to his economic policy ideas. So. That articles sounds spot on to me!

[JasonEvans]

I think your background and experience can be somewhat telling in terms of whether people take you seriously as a candidate. Buttigieg is getting hit fairly hard for his experience and he has been a mayor as well as a member of the US Military. Andrew Yang has been CEO of a GMAT test prep company and invested in a few other start ups. I think he is not being taken seriously by a lot of people because he does not seem like someone who actually has anywhere close to the experience necessary to be President.

[left_hook_lacey]

I think your background and experience can be somewhat telling in terms of whether people take you seriously as a candidate. Buttigieg is getting hit fairly hard for his experience and he has been a mayor as well as a member of the US Military. Andrew Yang has been CEO of a GMAT test prep company and invested in a few other start ups. I think he is not being taken seriously by a lot of people because he does not seem like someone who actually has anywhere close to the experience necessary to be President.

I don't think it matters. President Obama and President Trump are probably two of the least qualified president's from a traditional point of view, and they were/are our last two presidents.

[Acymetric]

I don't think it matters. President Obama and President Trump are probably two of the least qualified president's from a traditional point of view, and they were/are our last two presidents.

I think it is much more the single-issue thing than the experience thing. I certainly don't see a path forward for Yang in the primary, but I also expect it won't be the last we've heard of him.

[Bluedog]

I read an article that I cannot find right now that said Yang’s biggest issue was the perception that he is a one-issue candidate who is not otherwise prepared to be president.

That might be traditional wisdom but not like Trump had a Presidential resume either... I did enjoy Yang's Freakonomics interview where he offered several interesting ideas and he also said that he'd love for other candidates to "steal" them if they end up being the nominee. So perhaps some of his goal is to get these ideas a bigger platform and into the idea bank so that maybe a couple can actually be implemented. He said that'd be a win for him and worth all the time and effort.

[bundabergdevil]

I don't think it matters. President Obama and President Trump are probably two of the least qualified president's from a traditional point of view, and they were/are our last two presidents.

True. You do need to have political game though. Obama and Trump, though very different in terms of style, have political swerve. I'm not sure Yang has it, at least not as much as Buttigieg who is pretty darn inexperienced, too. Buttigieg is an extremely gifted communicator though. The best of the bunch, IMO.

I think about it a little bit like high schoolers or one-and-dones heading to the NBA. A lot of them think they can run with the big dogs and the don't do nearly as well on the big stage as they think. They might carve out a living or flame out all together but they're not the all-stars or generational talents they thought themselves to be. Then there's guys like Zion who is so gifted he can do things on a NBA floor nobody else in the league can do right away. Some politicians are like that despite not having years of governor or senatorial experience, Secretary positions, or whatever other else could be considered good experience.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think it matters. President Obama and President Trump are probably two of the least qualified president's from a traditional point of view, and they were/are our last two presidents.

Which IMHO (where the H got trampled during the HHH campaign in 1968), is why we have so many candidates. "I can do that." "I have as much experience as Barack Obama had in 2008." "I have more relevant business experience than our real-estate President."

[Tappan Zee Devil]

I don't think it matters. President Obama and President Trump are probably two of the least qualified president's from a traditional point of view, and they were/are our last two presidents.

ahh - Lincoln had one term in the House.

He seemed to do a reasonable job

[Bob Green]

I’m doing my Sunday morning reading where I go to RealClearPolitics.com and check the links they have compiled. This morning I found this article interesting:

https://outline.com/s9anPD

The author concludes the Democratic Party must “...keep the focus on everyday issues and the mendaciousness of Trump and the Republicans...Democrats need to get their act together and concentrate on the common enemy.”

The use of the term “enemy” says a lot about our current political landscape. One would expect terms such as “opponent” or “adversary” to be sufficient but those words lack the power required to describe the emotion surrounding the 2020 election.

The article points out that since WWII nine of 12 sitting presidents have won re-election. I’d argue it is actually nine of 11. Gerald Ford in 1976 is one of the three who lost but it is technically impossible to be re-elected when one was never elected to start with.

Overall, this article paints an ugly picture for Democratic Party chances to defeat Trump.

[budwom]

I still somehow suspect that after the primary season, in which parties typically go into Circular Firing Squad Mode, the smart nominees know enough to stick to bread and butter issues...I think that was a Demo failure last time, have no idea if the nominee this time can keep his or her eye on the ball...

[Nick]

The use of the term “enemy” says a lot about our current political landscape. One would expect terms such as “opponent” or “adversary” to be sufficient but those words lack the power required to describe the emotion surrounding the 2020 election.

Some folks have characterized the current situation as a cold civil war, and I'm inclined to agree. This is about the only place on the internet I can talk about politics with people of different viewpoints without them calling me a racist Nazi Drumpftard.

[bundabergdevil]

I still somehow suspect that after the primary season, in which parties typically go into Circular Firing Squad Mode, the smart nominees know enough to stick to bread and butter issues...I think that was a Demo failure last time, have no idea if the nominee this time can keep his or her eye on the ball...

With the exception of Sanders (and maybe Warren), I would expect any of the Democratic candidates to pivot to the political center in the regular. Trump is far right on several issues and if the Dems can just grab the moderate ground, they'd be aligned with a healthy majority of Americans. The Carville comments posted above aren't wrong, IMO. Despite the perception of extreme partisan division, there are plenty of votes up for grabs and there are angles of attack against Trump that I think have been under-leveraged by Dems that will be effective in the general with undecided or not-paying-attention voters.

Some folks have characterized the current situation as a cold civil war, and I'm inclined to agree. This is about the only place on the internet I can talk about politics with people of different viewpoints without them calling me a racist Nazi Drumpftard.

On 1 - I've said it before in this thread but it's a civil war that's been in existence since the counterculture movement of the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement (minorities, women, sexuality), and the Vietnam War. A lot of the true hot button in-your-gut social/cultural identity issues still in play moved to the forefront of public debate in the and 70s --- and, most of our 65+ leaders, would have spent their formative years deciding which side of those issues they stood on. Obviously the current media and internet landscape is like a blowtorch but having the generation that grew up with those issues at the peak of their political and financial power right now is part of the reason this is so ugly, too.

On 2 - that's a new one to me. I googled it and I still am not sure what it means and how it came to be.