Page 331 of 347 FirstFirst ... 231281321329330331332333341 ... LastLast
Results 6,601 to 6,620 of 6931
  1. #6601
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    We can make a pie bet then if Bernie ends up being denied the nomination despite winning the popular vote. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but suffice to say if it does, I couldn't disagree with you more. It's death if it happens, even if Bernie endorses the nominee.
    So you think that if, say, Sanders has 30% of the vote to 28% for Buttigieg, 15% for Biden, 12% for Bloomberg, 8% for Warren, and 7% for Klobuchar after all the states and then the party coalesces behind Buttigieg, that it would be death for the party? That seems crazy to say that if 70% prefer somebody else that the party should bend over for Sanders. Or that them choosing a Democrat who probably has more support overall would somehow doom their chances in the general.

    If Sanders has 45% of the vote and the plurality, I would agree with you. But in that scenario I would expect him to get the nomination.
    Last edited by CDu; 02-12-2020 at 09:29 PM.

  2. #6602
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    So you think that if, say, Sanders has 30% of the vote to 28% for Buttigieg, 15% for Biden, 12% for Bloomberg, 8% for Warren, and 7% for Klobuchar after all the states and then the party coalesces behind Buttigieg, that it would be death for the party? That seems crazy to say that if 70% prefer somebody else that the party should bend over for Sanders. Or that them choosing a Democrat who probably has more support overall would somehow doom their chances in the general.

    If Sanders has 45% of the vote and the plurality, I would agree with you. But in that scenario I would expect him to get the nomination.
    It isn't so much that they should bend over for Sanders so much as it puts them in an impossible/lose-lose situation. That 70% isn't enough to win the general, they'll need some of that 30% too.

    Which is why a brokered convention would be the worst possible scenario, and the DNC/candidates should do as much as possible to avoid it. It's bad even if it isn't Sanders who has the plurality. Hard to imagine any outcome of the primary that would dampen enthusiasm/turnout in the general more.

  3. #6603
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    It isn't so much that they should bend over for Sanders so much as it puts them in an impossible/lose-lose situation. That 70% isn't enough to win the general, they'll need some of that 30% too.

    Which is why a brokered convention would be the worst possible scenario, and the DNC/candidates should do as much as possible to avoid it. It's bad even if it isn't Sanders who has the plurality. Hard to imagine any outcome of the primary that would dampen enthusiasm/turnout in the general more.
    Thankfully (or not, depending on one’s perspective), it is probably a very unlikely situation. I suspect that somebody will get up over 40% of the votes, and the party will ultimately nominate that person. I don’t know who that person will be, but I think once 2 of the 3 “veteran” Dems drop out, the vote counts will work themselves out such that one or two candidates separate from the other two. And that will push someone forward.

    The only way we wind up in the hypothetical I created is if everybody sticks around or the moderate/establishment vote stays very evenly divided among 2-3 candidates. I don’t think either will happen. So I think that my hypothetical has little chance of playing out. And whomever has the plurality at the end will probably be close enough to the majority to get that support. My gut still says that will end up a Dem, but as of right now I would say it is 50/50 for Sanders. Would be nice to see some more polling though.

  4. #6604
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    So you think that if, say, Sanders has 30% of the vote to 28% for Buttigieg, 15% for Biden, 12% for Bloomberg, 8% for Warren, and 7% for Klobuchar after all the states and then the party coalesces behind Buttigieg, that it would be death for the party? That seems crazy to say that if 70% prefer somebody else that the party should bend over for Sanders. Or that them choosing a Democrat who probably has more support overall would somehow doom their chances in the general.

    If Sanders has 45% of the vote and the plurality, I would agree with you. But in that scenario I would expect him to get the nomination.
    Yes, I do believe that, even in the most extreme edge cases that we can create, Bernie winning the most votes and being denied the nomination means death in November, especially for a party that has spent four years promoting the popular vote over the electoral college. I don't believe Bernie voters will be able to get over it.

    That said, it likely wouldn't be an extreme edge case. Probably something more like Bernie 40, Buttigieg 30, Biden 15, Bloomberg 10, Other 5.

    Incidentally, those are the four candidates I believe will be alive on Super Tuesday. Bernie, Pete, Biden, Bloomberg.

  5. #6605
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Bloomberg is campaigning in Winston, Raleigh, and Greensboro today.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  6. #6606
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  7. #6607
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    I think anything that is seen by "Bernie or Bust"ers as conspiring against him is a problem for the Democrats. Doesn't matter if he has 25% or 45%.

    How big of a group that is, though, is unknown to me.
    "We're only tourists in this life
    Only tourists but the view is nice"

    -- David Byrne

  8. #6608
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    My initial reaction is that yes, this is a problem especially given the lingering bad feelings from 2016. But to play devil's advocate: I remember folks saying that party unity would be a problem for the Republicans in 2016 but it turned out not to be.

  9. #6609
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    My initial reaction is that yes, this is a problem especially given the lingering bad feelings from 2016. But to play devil's advocate: I remember folks saying that party unity would be a problem for the Republicans in 2016 but it turned out not to be.
    Well, largely because his opponent was someone so roundly reviled by his party. But the Democrats this year will be...

    Oh, right.

  10. #6610
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    For 80% of our democracy (i.e. 40 states), this isn't true, though; only 10 states require a runoff in the primary so that the winner achieves a majority.

    So, for example, Ilhan Omar (a Bernie supporter/endorser) won her House primary with only 48.2% of the vote because Minnesota is not one of those states.

    If hypothetically the Dem presidential primary did a runoff between the final two candidates and Bernie lost, *that* would probably save the Dems. Not backroom dealing, imo.

  11. #6611
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Yes, I do believe that, even in the most extreme edge cases that we can create, Bernie winning the most votes and being denied the nomination means death in November, especially for a party that has spent four years promoting the popular vote over the electoral college. I don't believe Bernie voters will be able to get over it.

    That said, it likely wouldn't be an extreme edge case. Probably something more like Bernie 40, Buttigieg 30, Biden 15, Bloomberg 10, Other 5.

    Incidentally, those are the four candidates I believe will be alive on Super Tuesday. Bernie, Pete, Biden, Bloomberg.
    I don't think in that hypothetical that alienating a portion of 30% of the primary vote would be backbreaking. But I agree that it is a highly unlikely hypothetical.

    Having said that, I kind of feel like the hypothetical 4-man race by Super Tuesday would lead to the vote distribution you suggest being unlikely. I think Biden will get pushed aside by the DNC fairly quickly if he's way behind Buttigieg after Super Tuesday. So I'd venture that - even if you assume Sanders gains more from the other moderate/establishment candidates dropping out - it'd be something more like Sanders 45, Buttigieg 35, Bloomberg 10, Everyone else 10.

    I think that the DNC would be ecstatic if it's down to 4 candidates before Super Tuesday, because that greatly reduces the likelihood of having a candidate fall far short of 50%.

    Also worth noting that if Sanders has 45% of the popular vote, he'd be really close to 50% of the delegates (if not over) because the #3 candidate and below would fail to be viable in a lot of places. So it would be largely moot, as he'd get the nomination. And if he had 40% popular vote, he'd probably be over 45% of the delegates, which again would likely lead to Sanders getting the nomination.

    The questions to me will be:
    1. Will the moderate/establishment lane get settled quickly
    2. Will Sanders see a big boost in support when the moderate/establishment settles
    3. Will the moderate voters divide between the last Dem standing and Bloomberg, or will they stay true to party


    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    It's a very fair question. I feel like that scenario plays out better if it happens earlier in the race, BEFORE we get close to the end where the plural candidate is the one left out. I would consider that a totally fair deal, and at the core of what our country is about. As for whether it would go over well with voters, it depends on the group.

    Sanders' camp has been built largely on younger voters, and there is the argument that many of them sat out the general in 2016 - despite losing the primary pretty comfortably and despite Clinton treating Sanders with kid gloves along the way. It makes sense, as younger voters are more likely to not vote at all, so if they didn't have their dream candidate some might very well have just bailed. That could certainly happen again in this scenario - in fact I'd consider it likely.

    BUT - much like in 2016, I don't think that would break the party. Despite running a candidate who drew out a lot of GOP support against her, the Dems fell just ~100,000 votes short. Clinton lost just as much because she took the Midwest for granted as because she couldn't convince Sanders supporters to back her. So I think that a less inflammatory and more strategic candidate plus Sanders' support representing a smaller piece of the pie in this scenario would not be any more backbreaking than it was in 2016.

    As for the practical situation, I think it's a little less currently in that Biden and Bloomberg seem highly UNlikely to accept a running mate role (Biden because he's been there, done that; Bloomberg because he's a CEO type). If it was Biden or Bloomberg in the driver's seat of the mod/establishment lane, I could certainly see a Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Warren type merging with the bigger name. But that would require Biden or Bloomberg to overtake Buttigieg (which may still happen - we'll see).

  12. #6612
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Asheville
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Bloomberg is campaigning in Winston, Raleigh, and Greensboro today.
    Good thing these cities have venues large enough for the tens of people expected to be there.

    In all seriousness, I saw my first "Bloomberg" yard sign here in deep blue Asheville yesterday. It was right accross from my office.
    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  13. #6613
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    Good thing these cities have venues large enough for the tens of people expected to be there.

    In all seriousness, I saw my first "Bloomberg" yard sign here in deep blue Asheville yesterday. It was right accross from my office.
    Not sure why their is so much anti-Bloomberg snark around here. I thought the polls were supposed to guide our commentary.

    He drew hundreds with more in an overflow room in Chattanooga yesterday.

    https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...aid-me/515563/

    It looks like he is holding a small rally in Winston-Salem but that is not necessarily because that is the most people he can expect to attract.

    https://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...8a4f65cb6.html

    Looks like Bernie will be in Durham on Friday - assuming he isn't sticking around for the game on Saturday...

  14. #6614
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    Good thing these cities have venues large enough for the tens of people expected to be there.

    In all seriousness, I saw my first "Bloomberg" yard sign here in deep blue Asheville yesterday. It was right accross from my office.
    Given Asheville's politically active culture, there are so far surprisingly few poster of all types, in my opinion.

  15. #6615
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Asheville
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Given Asheville's politically active culture, there are so far surprisingly few poster of all types, in my opinion.
    I was thinking the same thing. I see plenty of Bernie signs/stickers. Surprisingly high number of Trump signs/stickers as well.

    I bet we will start seeing a lot more in the coming months.
    Last edited by mattman91; 02-13-2020 at 10:28 AM.
    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  16. #6616
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Asheville
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Not sure why their is so much anti-Bloomberg snark around here. I thought the polls were supposed to guide our commentary.

    He drew hundreds with more in an overflow room in Chattanooga yesterday.

    https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...aid-me/515563/

    It looks like he is holding a small rally in Winston-Salem but that is not necessarily because that is the most people he can expect to attract.

    https://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...8a4f65cb6.html

    Looks like Bernie will be in Durham on Friday - assuming he isn't sticking around for the game on Saturday...
    I meant it to be more playful, but hundreds is still not a lot of people.

    Of course, crowd size doesn't always correlate with actual votes.
    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  17. #6617
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    I think one of the interesting things will be to see how (if at all) the moderate/establishment candidates - especially in the South - handle the emergence of Buttigieg in New Hampshire and Iowa, the emergence of Klobuchar in New Hampshire, and the struggles of Biden in both states. Does Buttigieg's very strong showings in both states and current delegate lead convince folks in Nevada to take him seriously? Does Klobuchar consolidate Warren's support and draw further support from Biden? Or do the voters ignore the first two states and stick by the candidate that has had more national cache for longer?

    Part of the reason that the models are so high on Sanders is less because he's doing way better (he pretty much has stayed in the 25% range) and more because the two candidates that the party previously thought would be doing well (Biden and Warren) have struggled (Biden moreso than Warren). So the question is whether one of the two upstarts' success in Iowa and New Hampshire starts to change the narrative nationally that the moderate lane can/should get behind a new horse in the race.

    The lack of state-level polling in recent weeks and relatively few national polls means that the polling data still doesn't align with the results. So it's really hard to tell what the effect of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire mean. Are the models still correct to view Biden as the best non-Sanders bet (rebounding at least somewhat in the South), or will these results cause a dramatic shift in how voters view the moderate/establishment lane which will start to show up in future state and national polls?

    It will be really interesting to see the polls coming in over the next week or so as we approach the Nevada caucus to get a sense of where this thing is headed.
    Last edited by CDu; 02-13-2020 at 10:36 AM.

  18. #6618
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    I was thinking the same thing. I see plenty of Bernie signs/stickers. Surprisingly high number of Trump signs/stickers as well.

    I bet we will start seeing a lot more in the coming months.
    I wouldn't be surprised by the number of Trump stuff. While the city of Asheville is very blue, it is surrounded by a sea of red, from the ridgetop McMansions to the very rural areas encompassing it.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  19. #6619
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Asheville
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised by the number of Trump stuff. While the city of Asheville is very blue, it is surrounded by a sea of red, from the ridgetop McMansions to the very rural areas encompassing it.
    Right, I'm just surprised that I have seen so few other presidential candidate signs, given the number of (somewhat) viable Dem candidates still in the race.
    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  20. #6620
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised by the number of Trump stuff. While the city of Asheville is very blue, it is surrounded by a sea of red, from the ridgetop McMansions to the very rural areas encompassing it.
    There's a pretty vocal right in and around Asheville. They are certainly outnumbered, but I think that lends to them being louder.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Presidential Race
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16487
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 11:52 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •