2020 Presidential Election

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Bloomberg is in the debate this Wednesday - he qualified and is participating. That should turn up the drama level quite a bit - I assume everyone else will largely gang up on him. And Trump will have a blast watching it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/u...gtype=Homepage

[CDu]

Problem is, some chunk of The Bernie Bros. are not historical Democrats. As Bernie rightfully boasts, many of them are new voters that are drawn to Bernie. It’s not a given that they will vote Democrat, or vote at all, if Bernie is the candidate.

Per at least one recent poll, only 53% of Bernie’s supporters say that they will #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. 16% flat out said “no.”

https://www.newsweek.com/andrew-yang...c-poll-1485241

Same thing happened in 2016, when Sanders lost the 1-on-1 with Clinton and many of his voters didn’t accept it.

[SouthernDukie]

If Bernie has a plurality and is not the nominee, I invite any and all of you to come at me with pie/beer bets about whether the D nominee can beat Trump.

Bingo. I can't see how another Dem candidate beats Trump if Bernie voters feel alienated and don't support the nominee. And a solid chunk of them (not all, but I'd think somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2) will pick up their marbles and leave the playground if they think their man got a raw deal.

Problem is, some chunk of The Bernie Bros. are not historical Democrats. As Bernie rightfully boasts, many of them are new voters that are drawn to Bernie. It’s not a given that they will vote Democrat, or vote at all, if Bernie is the candidate.

Per at least one recent poll, only 53% of Bernie’s supporters say that they will #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. 16% flat out said “no.”

https://www.newsweek.com/andrew-yang...c-poll-1485241

And there you go. It was a real thing 4 years ago, and it's still a real thing now. Bernie Sanders voters are like Ron Paul supporters in the GOP about a decade ago. Only much larger in scale. It's their candidate or no candidate.

[JasonEvans]

When thinking about a contested convention, we should not ignore the value of being "the winner" late in the process. Whoever is winning the April, May, and June contests (once the field has thinned to two or maybe three candidates) will have a heck of a lot of momentum to claim to be the nominee at a contested convention. Don't forget that many significant Democratic states vote late:

April 28 - New York, Penn, Maryland, Conn
May 5 - Indiana
May 19- Oregon, Kentucky
June 2 - New Jersey, New Mexico

If someone is taking those states with 50%+ then I'll bet may pies that person will be the nominee. But if the plurality leader is still failing to consistently win states in a winnowed field it would seem to me that the party is undecided and some kind of deal-making at the convention would be entirely appropriate.

-Jason "the last thing Democratic party leaders should consider is whether Bernie's supporters will stay home if he is not the nominee... you cannot let the loud complainers get their way or you just encourage everyone to become a mob" Evans

[SouthernDukie]

I think LasVegas and SouthernDukie are mis-underestimating the intensity of the anti-Trump sentiment among the Dems. And, of course, I could be wrong about that as well.

This is the dilemma. Trump hate on the one hand. Bernie-only devotion on the other.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? We will all find out this year.

P.S. Seeing Jason's post just above mine after I hit send. I don't disagree at all that the Dems shouldn't cave to Bernie supporters. I'm simply stating what seems to be the obvious ramifications if it works out that Bernie is not the nominee after having a plurality. It is what it is.

[Troublemaker]

Same thing happened in 2016, when Sanders lost the 1-on-1 with Clinton and many of his voters didn’t accept it.

Yes, but in 2016, there were normal defection rates. For example, the 12% of Bernie primary voters who voted Trump in the general is actually less than the 15% of Clinton primary voters who voted McCain in 2008. Yes, in 2016, there was a vocal minority of Bernie voters who complained about the "rigged" process, but ultimately deep down, almost all Bernie voters knew he suffered a legitimate defeat. (Because it was!)

Okay, but everyone can see how this situation we're discussing in 2020 is completely different, right? If Bernie wins the popular vote (and the most delegates) but is denied the nomination, I predict that the sit-out and defection numbers will rise, perhaps dramatically.

[CDu]

Yes, but in 2016, there were normal defection rates. For example, the 12% of Bernie primary voters who voted Trump in the general is actually less than the 15% of Clinton primary voters who voted McCain in 2008. Yes, in 2016, there was a vocal minority of Bernie voters who complained about the "rigged" process, but ultimately deep down, almost all Bernie voters knew he suffered a legitimate defeat. (Because it was!)

Okay, but everyone can see how this situation we're discussing in 2020 is completely different, right? If Bernie wins the popular vote (and the most delegates) but is denied the nomination, I predict that the sit-out and defection numbers will rise, perhaps dramatically.

It isn’t just the defection rates in 2016. It is the ones who took their ball and went home. So to think that if Bernie loses head to head his voters will coalesce this time is... optimistic.

[El_Diablo]

I didn't realize that any of the candidates were immunologists.

Trump seems to think it’s no big deal: "Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape though."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-white-house-business-session-nations-governors/

[luvdahops]

Yes, but in 2016, there were normal defection rates. For example, the 12% of Bernie primary voters who voted Trump in the general is actually less than the 15% of Clinton primary voters who voted McCain in 2008. Yes, in 2016, there was a vocal minority of Bernie voters who complained about the "rigged" process, but ultimately deep down, almost all Bernie voters knew he suffered a legitimate defeat. (Because it was!)

Okay, but everyone can see how this situation we're discussing in 2020 is completely different, right? If Bernie wins the popular vote (and the most delegates) but is denied the nomination, I predict that the sit-out and defection numbers will rise, perhaps dramatically.

But how important are the "Bernie only" folks in the handful of swing states that will likely decide this election? Especially relative to independents and establishment Rs that could be drawn to a more moderate D nominee. To me, that is the bigger question, given that the real story or the 2018 midterms was moderate Dems regaining seats in states won by Trump, not some great push to the left, however much AOC and crew have tried to make it seem that way.

And while I have no scientific basis behind it, my gut tells me that the "Bernie only" folks are likely concentrated in states that are pretty safely Blue. So their importance from an electoral college standpoint is less than meets the eye, if even their ranks may have swollen since 2016.

[PackMan97]

But how important are the "Bernie only" folks in the handful of swing states that will likely decide this election? Especially relative to independents and establishment Rs that could be drawn to a more moderate D nominee. To me, that is the bigger question, given that the real story or the 2018 midterms was moderate Dems regaining seats in states won by Trump, not some great push to the left, however much AOC and crew have tried to make it seem that way.

And while I have no scientific basis behind it, my gut tells me that the "Bernie only" folks are likely concentrated in states that are pretty safely Blue. So their importance from an electoral college standpoint is less than meets the eye, if even their ranks may have swollen since 2016.

That is my take from it. The votes you gain from Bernie in safe states is more than offset by votes lost (or even worse votes gained by Trump) in swing states.

I do wonder what the Ron Paul supporters are doing in the age of Trump, as libertarianism is just about the opposite of Trump on most major policy areas. Did they leave the party? The Libertarian party hasn't seen a significant upswing to indicate a large defection.

[OldPhiKap]

But how important are the "Bernie only" folks in the handful of swing states that will likely decide this election? Especially relative to independents and establishment Rs that could be drawn to a more moderate D nominee. To me, that is the bigger question, given that the real story or the 2018 midterms was moderate Dems regaining seats in states won by Trump, not some great push to the left, however much AOC and crew have tried to make it seem that way.

And while I have no scientific basis behind it, my gut tells me that the "Bernie only" folks are likely concentrated in states that are pretty safely Blue. So their importance from an electoral college standpoint is less than meets the eye, if even their ranks may have swollen since 2016.

Bernie had 11,000 in Denver a few nights ago. Colorado is only a Democratic lean as best I can tell (although could stand to be corrected).

The Atlanta and Athens areas have strong Bernie backing in a purpling state targeted by the Dems.

I am not sure it is a coastal thing as much as an age thing, which is more evenly spread throughout the nation.

[Wander]

you cannot let the loud complainers get their way or you just encourage everyone to become a mob

Sigh... and just when I had started to blissfully forget about JJ Abrams ruining Rey's storyline in the last movie...

[CameronBornAndBred]

Bernie is setting up shop in NC. He is opening 5 offices, including in Durham, Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greenville. Not sure where the 5th one is.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Be...567964751.html

[Troublemaker]

But how important are the "Bernie only" folks in the handful of swing states that will likely decide this election? Especially relative to independents and establishment Rs that could be drawn to a more moderate D nominee. To me, that is the bigger question, given that the real story or the 2018 midterms was moderate Dems regaining seats in states won by Trump, not some great push to the left, however much AOC and crew have tried to make it seem that way.

I agree that you are asking a very important question. Bernie has major working class support that could/should play well in the Midwest, and he'll bring out the youth vote in every state that perhaps no other candidate can bring out. Further, I don't take it as a given that "moderate" suburban voters will go to Trump if Bernie is on the ballot. 4-5 months of Bernie assuring voters that he'll work with Pelosi and Schumer (and those two and other establishment Ds endorsing him), and CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc all falling in line to support him will play a major factor.

But, yes, I would agree we are missing the hard numbers to really get a sense of how the see-saw looks WRT Bernie voters and "moderates."

[camion]

Assuming Bernie doesn't get the nomination, how would Bernie as VP candidate play?

[duke79]

I agree that you are asking a very important question. Bernie has major working class support that could/should play well in the Midwest, and he'll bring out the youth vote in every state that perhaps no other candidate can bring out. Further, I don't take it as a given that "moderate" suburban voters will go to Trump if Bernie is on the ballot. 4-5 months of Bernie assuring voters that he'll work with Pelosi and Schumer (and those two and other establishment Ds endorsing him), and CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc all falling in line to support him will play a major factor.

But, yes, I would agree we are missing the hard numbers to really get a sense of how the see-saw looks WRT Bernie voters and "moderates."

I disagree with you here (see bolded section above). IF Bernie wins the Democratic nomination (which I think is still a long shot - but who knows?), I think Trump will get a substantial percentage of the moderate suburban voters (at least partly based on the ongoing strong economy and stock market and the fact that a lot of "moderates" are still very skeptical of voting for a "democratic socialist"). I'm predicting that, if it a race between Bernie and Trump, that Trump wins 40 to 45 states (and maybe more?). It could be a repeat of the 1972 McGovern/Nixon race.

Also, I'm not sure that the mainstream news outlets (NY Times, WaPost, CNN, etc) are going to give Bernie a full-throated endorsement, if he is the nominee. Obviously, they're not endorsing Trump but it wouldn't surprise me if they withhold any endorsement in a Sanders/Trump race.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I disagree with you here (see bolded section above). IF Bernie wins the Democratic nomination (which I think is still a long shot - but who knows?), I think Trump will get a substantial percentage of the moderate suburban voters (at least partly based on the ongoing strong economy and stock market and the fact that a lot of "moderates" are still very skeptical of voting for a "democratic socialist"). I'm predicting that, if it a race between Bernie and Trump, that Trump wins 40 to 45 states (and maybe more?). It could be a repeat of the 1972 McGovern/Nixon race.

Also, I'm not sure that the mainstream news outlets (NY Times, WaPost, CNN, etc) are going to give Bernie a full-throated endorsement, if he is the nominee. Obviously, they're not endorsing Trump but it wouldn't surprise me if they withhold any endorsement in a Sanders/Trump race.

I think that after the amount of grief Trump has given the Fourth Estate, major outlets would endorse a turnip against Trump.

[CDu]

I disagree with you here (see bolded section above). IF Bernie wins the Democratic nomination (which I think is still a long shot - but who knows?), I think Trump will get a substantial percentage of the moderate suburban voters (at least partly based on the ongoing strong economy and stock market and the fact that a lot of "moderates" are still very skeptical of voting for a "democratic socialist").

I tend to agree here. It is worth noting that 50% of NH voters said that Sanders was too liberal for them. And that is in a Democratic primary. I can only imagine the potential swing when they introduce the GOP to the party. And Sanders does really poorly with older (45+) voters. So I think there is a lot of uncertainty of what would happen if Sanders gets the nomination. There are some certainties (he'll draw out more support from young voters who might otherwise stay home like they did in 2016; he'll push some moderate/centrist Dems to vote GOP or abstain; he'll really draw out the "anti-socialist" GOP vote against him). A lot of questions to be had all around.

Also, I'm not sure that the mainstream news outlets (NY Times, WaPost, CNN, etc) are going to give Bernie a full-throated endorsement, if he is the nominee. Obviously, they're not endorsing Trump but it wouldn't surprise me if they withhold any endorsement in a Sanders/Trump race.

Eh, I think those news outlets that lean Dem will fully endorse the Dem candidate, just like those news outlets that lean GOP will support Trump. Whether or not it makes a difference will be the question.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree that you are asking a very important question. Bernie has major working class support that could/should play well in the Midwest, and he'll bring out the youth vote in every state that perhaps no other candidate can bring out. Further, I don't take it as a given that "moderate" suburban voters will go to Trump if Bernie is on the ballot. 4-5 months of Bernie assuring voters that he'll work with Pelosi and Schumer (and those two and other establishment Ds endorsing him), and CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc all falling in line to support him will play a major factor.

But, yes, I would agree we are missing the hard numbers to really get a sense of how the see-saw looks WRT Bernie voters and "moderates."

Bernie lost the endorsement of the hotel and restaurant union in Vegas (a huge group), largely because the union took wage cuts over the years in order to get better health care benefits. Bernie's universal, government-run health gives away the main thing they bargained for and won.

I think a lot of unions are in similar boats. I would expect that Bernie will lose some amount of these voters, which hurts in the Midwest and Pennsylvania.

I don't recall the exact number, but something around 80% or more of folks want to have the option to keep private insurance. Running on a platform to take away this change is suicide. If it is true that health care costs are one of the major concerns of the electorate out there, why would you run on a platform that is extremely unpopular even amongst Democrats?

More broadly, I think a lot of folks want a change from Trump. But they're not in favor of a socialist revolution either. Anyone want to bet on what happens to the 401(k)s and retirement plans of those suburban voters if Bernie is able to enact his policies? If I told you hypothetically that stock prices would drop and that taxes would go up in the first few years of a Sanders Administration, would moderates simply say that they don't like Trump but "it's the economy, stupid?"

[CDu]

I don't recall the exact number, but something around 80% or more of folks want to have the option to keep private insurance. Running on a platform to take away this change is suicide. If it is true that health care costs are one of the major concerns of the electorate out there, why would you run on a platform that is extremely unpopular even amongst Democrats?

Yeah, as someone who has made the argument that switching to a universal healthcare system would wind up cost neutral for taxpayers, even I agree that this will be a major hurdle for most voters. And Sanders (and Warren) hasn't done anything to convince voters that his plans will be cost neutral (to be clear, I don't think a lot of his plans would be cost neutral, just the health care idea). He ran on the idea of universal healthcare and eliminating the cost of college 4 years ago. He's had four years to work on a convincing argument in favor of those ideas, yet has failed to generate a convincing argument. And that is in the face of only a fairly agreeable party, not the general public.

Maybe he will come up with that strategy in the coming months. But I think the socialist tag and the general public's belief that a universal healthcare system will cost them a ton more money will be a huge hurdle for him to overcome in a general election.