2020 Presidential Election

[Troublemaker]

What an excellent way to earn the trust and support of the constituency!

Perhaps the only poll that matters now, and hopefully some organization conducts it, is whether D voters believe the plurality winner should get the nomination. If it's like 75% Yes, I wonder if the establishment will still give the nomination to Bloomberg at the convention.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Perhaps the only poll that matters now, and hopefully some organization conducts it, is whether D voters believe the plurality winner should get the nomination. If it's like 75% Yes, I wonder if the establishment will still give the nomination to Bloomberg at the convention.

Perhaps this the "transparency" the candidates were alluding to on the stage!

[sagegrouse]

Perhaps the only poll that matters now, and hopefully some organization conducts it, is whether D voters believe the plurality winner should get the nomination. If it's like 75% Yes, I wonder if the establishment will still give the nomination to Bloomberg at the convention.

Well, not based on Wednesday's showing in a political debate.

[JasonEvans]

Perhaps the only poll that matters now, and hopefully some organization conducts it, is whether D voters believe the plurality winner should get the nomination. If it's like 75% Yes, I wonder if the establishment will still give the nomination to Bloomberg at the convention.

What on Earth makes you think the establishment would want Bloomberg on a second ballot? I mean, I know he has given to a lot of Dems in recent years but he is hardly a longtime friend of the party.

If it goes to a second ballot, I strongly suspect we would see some kind of unity ticket with Sanders in the VP role. I know many folks seem to think he would not agree to this but it is better then him being completely shut out and his angry supporters allowing Trump to win. I truly believe he does not want Trump to get another 4 years.

[JasonEvans]

Emerson, a really good pollster, has a new Nevada poll.

http://emersonpolling.com/2020/02/20...-second-place/

Sanders 30.4%
Buttigieg 16.9%
Biden 16.1%
Warren 12.1%
Klobuchar 11.0%
Steyer 9.8%
Gabbard 1.9%
Other 1.8%

Nevada is a caucus state, which means that if your candidate gets less than 15%, you go to your second choice. If these numbers play out tomorrow, most of those Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren voters are going to go to a new candidate. It will be fascinating to see who that candidate is. Buttigieg did really well in second choice voting in Iowa but there are indications that Warren and Biden are both stronger in that arena in Nevada.

[Troublemaker]

Well, not based on Wednesday's showing in a political debate.

Realistically, that debate (his first one) will probably be his worst. (Right? One would hope.) He's probably only going to improve from here. There was conversation upthread about which would be more impactful -- that disastrous debate, or his money. Having thought about it more, I think long-term, it's easily his money; the debate only serves to stall his ascent as the #1 contender to Bernie. Long-term, it's a two-horse race between those two.

What on Earth makes you think the establishment would want Bloomberg on a second ballot? I mean, I know he has given to a lot of Dems in recent years but he is hardly a longtime friend of the party.

Well, Bloomberg seems to think they will, and his money is going to be awfully persuasive. He could basically fund all the House and Senate races himself. In 2016, total spending on congressional races was $4 billion, so roughly $2 billion for each party. Bloomberg's already starved all his non-Bernie opponents out of money because he's convinced all the big money D donors to sit out and effectively back him (Bernie's money-making engine relies on small-money grassroots support, so no effect on him). It's an easy pitch to sell -- "I'll do all the spending, and you guys just sit back and relax" -- and every indication is that Bloomberg is the choice for the big-money D donors now, which effectively makes him the choice for the D establishment.

If it goes to a second ballot, I strongly suspect we would see some kind of unity ticket with Sanders in the VP role. I know many folks seem to think he would not agree to this but it is better then him being completely shut out and his angry supporters allowing Trump to win. I truly believe he does not want Trump to get another 4 years.

I'd love to bet that with you. It smacks of wishful thinking, imo, the idea that the delegate leader accepts the VP role; a "unity" ticket has to have Bernie on top in that situation.

If not Bloomberg and his money, the Ds could choose someone who was not in the race at all (i.e. someone Bernie didn't beat), someone that stands a prayer of a chance of uniting the party. I'm going to search far and wide to see if I can find 100-to-1 longshot odds on Michelle Obama being the nominee. I know she hates politics and wants to stay out of it, but if everyone begs her to come save the Party?... Well, it's still a longshot but I like it better than Sanders as VP :-).

[budwom]

Sanders in the VP role is not going to happen, period.

[sagegrouse]

Realistically, that debate (his first one) will probably be his worst. (Right? One would hope.) He's probably only going to improve from here. There was conversation upthread about which would be more impactful -- that disastrous debate, or his money. Having thought about it more, I think long-term, it's easily his money; the debate only serves to stall his ascent as the #1 contender to Bernie. Long-term, it's a two-horse race between those two.

Well, Bloomberg seems to think they will, and his money is going to be awfully persuasive. He could basically fund all the House and Senate races himself. In 2016, total spending on congressional races was $4 billion, so roughly $2 billion for each party. Bloomberg's already starved all his non-Bernie opponents out of money because he's convinced all the big money D donors to sit out and effectively back him (Bernie's money-making engine relies on small-money grassroots support, so no effect on him). It's an easy pitch to sell -- "I'll do all the spending, and you guys just sit back and relax" -- and every indication is that Bloomberg is the choice for the big-money D donors now, which effectively makes him the choice for the D establishment.

I'd love to bet that with you. It smacks of wishful thinking, imo, the idea that the delegate leader accepts the VP role; a "unity" ticket has to have Bernie on top in that situation.

If not Bloomberg and his money, the Ds could choose someone who was not in the race at all (i.e. someone Bernie didn't beat), someone that stands a prayer of a chance of uniting the party. I'm going to search far and wide to see if I can find 100-to-1 longshot odds on Michelle Obama being the nominee. I know she hates politics and wants to stay out of it, but if everyone begs her to come save the Party?... Well, it's still a longshot but I like it better than Sanders as VP :-).

I agree that Bloomberg can recover -- look at Elizabeth Warren, who was headed to drinking beer at home with her husband.

We are in unknown territory -- Bernie at 30 percent support and a bunch of others around 15 percent. If Bernie can grow his support to 40-45 percent, he can probably win the nomination. If he remains at 30-35, then someone else will emerge as the principal challenger and likely get the nomination. Or else, it will go to the convention.* The process by which an alternate candidate rises to the top is unknown now, but we will know a lot more after Super Tuesday.

Kindly,
Sage
* A selection by the convention? We are talking 1952, which was 68 years ago.

Per Wiki:

Governor [Adlai] Stevenson [of Illinois], who stated that he was not a presidential candidate, was asked to give the welcoming address to the delegates. He proceeded to give a witty and stirring address that led his supporters to begin a renewed round of efforts to nominate him despite his protests. After meeting with Jacob Arvey, the boss of the Illinois delegation, Stevenson finally agreed to enter his name as a candidate for the nomination. The party bosses from other large Northern and Midwestern states quickly joined in support. Kefauver, a favorite in the primary race, led on the first ballot but had far fewer votes than necessary to win. Stevenson gradually gained strength until he was nominated on the third ballot. The convention then chose Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, a conservative and segregationist, as Stevenson's running mate. The Supreme Court would not decide Brown v. Board of Education for approximately another two years. Stevenson then delivered an eloquent acceptance speech in which he famously pledged to "talk sense to the American people."

[mkirsh]

Realistically, that debate (his first one) will probably be his worst. (Right? One would hope.) He's probably only going to improve from here. There was conversation upthread about which would be more impactful -- that disastrous debate, or his money. Having thought about it more, I think long-term, it's easily his money; the debate only serves to stall his ascent as the #1 contender to Bernie. Long-term, it's a two-horse race between those two.



Well, Bloomberg seems to think they will, and his money is going to be awfully persuasive. He could basically fund all the House and Senate races himself. In 2016, total spending on congressional races was $4 billion, so roughly $2 billion for each party. Bloomberg's already starved all his non-Bernie opponents out of money because he's convinced all the big money D donors to sit out and effectively back him (Bernie's money-making engine relies on small-money grassroots support, so no effect on him). It's an easy pitch to sell -- "I'll do all the spending, and you guys just sit back and relax" -- and every indication is that Bloomberg is the choice for the big-money D donors now, which effectively makes him the choice for the D establishment.



I'd love to bet that with you. It smacks of wishful thinking, imo, the idea that the delegate leader accepts the VP role; a "unity" ticket has to have Bernie on top in that situation.

If not Bloomberg and his money, the Ds could choose someone who was not in the race at all (i.e. someone Bernie didn't beat), someone that stands a prayer of a chance of uniting the party. I'm going to search far and wide to see if I can find 100-to-1 longshot odds on Michelle Obama being the nominee. I know she hates politics and wants to stay out of it, but if everyone begs her to come save the Party?... Well, it's still a longshot but I like it better than Sanders as VP :-).

As long as we are throwing out wild speculation (and please delete this post if it's over the line), my long shot dark horse is Al Gore. He's been out of politics a looong time, but seems like a perfect compromise candidate. His stance on environmental issues and climate change should rally the progressive wing of the party, and I would imagine he would be more centrist on things like health care, taxes, etc to appeal to moderates and try to win back the Obama-Trump voters in PA, MI, and WI. Surely someone has at least called him?

[OldPhiKap]

If they were going to go off the board, I would throw out Adam Schiff as a good candidate.

But I seriously doubt they're going to go off the board if the convention is brokered because that would satisfy absolutely no one.

[JasonEvans]

Sanders in the VP role is not going to happen, period.

Party leader: "Bernie, you won 40% of the delegates but the other 60% were clearly voting against you. The other 60% are all backing xxxx and that will be the nominee. But we know your supporters are going to be upset and we probably cannot win if they stay home. We want to make some of your ideas a core of the platform. We want you to be a face of the party. We want you to be VP. Please say yes, because saying no will mean 4 more years of Donald Trump."

You really think he is so "my way or the highway" set in his ways that he would rather be known as the guy who gifted Trump a second term than be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

[JasonEvans]

Gore is only 71... he's basically the same age as Warren and several years younger than Biden, Sanders, and Trump.

But I seriously doubt they're going to go off the board if the convention is brokered because that would satisfy absolutely no one.

Disagree... a compromise person who has not been party of the family squabble getting to the convention would make a lot of sense. It is the best way to find a nominee that everyone feels good about.

I could really see party leaders going to Michelle and telling her she is the one person who can untie the party and get rid of Trump. Tell her is only has to be one term and she can pick her VP (who will become the de facto 2024 front-runner).

Michelle would likely win in a landslide. Her favorables are around 70%. Yes, they would come down if she got in, but I suspect she would still win the race fairly comfortably.

[sagegrouse]

Gore is only 71... he's basically the same age as Warren and several years younger than Biden, Sanders, and Trump.



Disagree... a compromise person who has not been party of the family squabble getting to the convention would make a lot of sense. It is the best way to find a nominee that everyone feels good about.

I could really see party leaders going to Michelle and telling her she is the one person who can untie the party and get rid of Trump. Tell her is only has to be one term and she can pick her VP (who will become the de facto 2024 front-runner).

Michelle would likely win in a landslide. Her favorables are around 70%. Yes, they would come down if she got in, but I suspect she would still win the race fairly comfortably.

Michelle Obama is the most liked and respected person on earth. She is not qualified to be President.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Gore is only 71... he's basically the same age as Warren and several years younger than Biden, Sanders, and Trump.



Disagree... a compromise person who has not been party of the family squabble getting to the convention would make a lot of sense. It is the best way to find a nominee that everyone feels good about.

I could really see party leaders going to Michelle and telling her she is the one person who can untie the party and get rid of Trump. Tell her is only has to be one term and she can pick her VP (who will become the de facto 2024 front-runner).

Michelle would likely win in a landslide. Her favorables are around 70%. Yes, they would come down if she got in, but I suspect she would still win the race fairly comfortably.

I think the current candidates are doing a great job of untying the party

[Troublemaker]

Party leader: "Bernie, you won 40% of the delegates but the other 60% were clearly voting against you. The other 60% are all backing xxxx and that will be the nominee. But we know your supporters are going to be upset and we probably cannot win if they stay home. We want to make some of your ideas a core of the platform. We want you to be a face of the party. We want you to be VP. Please say yes, because saying no will mean 4 more years of Donald Trump."

You really think he is so "my way or the highway" set in his ways that he would rather be known as the guy who gifted Trump a second term than be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Bernie: "Those 60% are corrupt delegates, not actual voters. I beat every other candidate here in head-to-head polling. Furthermore, once the general election is over, I will have no leverage to enact any of my plans from the vice presidency even if we do win. So, I decline. Still, I will endorse the nominee as I did Hillary in 2016, and hopefully my Bernie Bros won't burn down Milwaukee. What does it matter, anyway? We are in a global pandemic thanks to novel coronavirus. Nobody is going to the polls in November because they don't want to get sick."

[duke79]

As long as we are throwing out wild speculation (and please delete this post if it's over the line), my long shot dark horse is Al Gore. He's been out of politics a looong time, but seems like a perfect compromise candidate. His stance on environmental issues and climate change should rally the progressive wing of the party, and I would imagine he would be more centrist on things like health care, taxes, etc to appeal to moderates and try to win back the Obama-Trump voters in PA, MI, and WI. Surely someone has at least called him?

LOL, is Al still alive??

[OldPhiKap]

You really think he is so "my way or the highway" set in his ways that he would rather be known as the guy who gifted Trump a second term than be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

if his support is so critical to the election cause, what in Bernie's background makes one think that Bernie would not continue to insist on the top job then?

If Bernie has 40% (which surely would be the leading plurality), no way does he just walk away quietly. None of them would. And it's not like Bernie is known for compromising.

[duke79]

Gore is only 71... he's basically the same age as Warren and several years younger than Biden, Sanders, and Trump.



Disagree... a compromise person who has not been party of the family squabble getting to the convention would make a lot of sense. It is the best way to find a nominee that everyone feels good about.

I could really see party leaders going to Michelle and telling her she is the one person who can untie the party and get rid of Trump. Tell her is only has to be one term and she can pick her VP (who will become the de facto 2024 front-runner).

Michelle would likely win in a landslide. Her favorables are around 70%. Yes, they would come down if she got in, but I suspect she would still win the race fairly comfortably.

Do you really think that Bernie, Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, etc., who have spent YEARS trudging all over the country, in every crappy little city and town in Iowa and New Hampshire and other states and have spent YEARS having to beg people to give them money (or, in the case of Bloomberg, spending HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of his own money) will just sit back and allow someone to waltz in during the convention and become the nominee?? I would put the odds of this happening at about 1 in 10,000 (or maybe greater). I would bet my life savings that the eventual nominee will be one of the current candidates. Admittedly, there may be a lot of "horse trading" at the end of the primaries, IF no one can win a majority of the delegates. Despite his terrible performance the other night, I still think it will come down to Sanders vs. Bloomberg at the end.

Extremely wishful thinking that Michelle O would beat Trump in a "landslide". LOL. She has NO political experience (and has never run in a single campaign in her life, for ANY elected position). Her "favorables", at this point in time, mean absolutely nothing in terms of how she would do on the campaign trail in a race for the highest office in the land. Frankly, I think Bernie would do better against Trump than Michelle and I think Bernie would lose 49 to 50 states.

I still maintain that, IF the economy and the stock market hold up for the next 8 months AND Trump does NOT do something incredibly stupid, he will easily beat ANY Democrat.

Time will tell.

[sagegrouse]

Do you really think that Bernie, Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, etc., who have spent YEARS trudging all over the country, in every crappy little city and town in Iowa and New Hampshire and other states and have spent YEARS having to beg people to give them money (or, in the case of Bloomberg, spending HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of his own money) will just sit back and allow someone to waltz in during the convention and become the nominee?? I would put the odds of this happening at about 1 in 10,000 (or maybe greater). I would bet my life savings that the eventual nominee will be one of the current candidates. Admittedly, there may be a lot of "horse trading" at the end of the primaries, IF no one can win a majority of the delegates. Despite his terrible performance the other night, I still think it will come down to Sanders vs. Bloomberg at the end.

Extremely wishful thinking that Michelle O would beat Trump in a "landslide". LOL. She has NO political experience (and has never run in a single campaign in her life, for ANY elected position). Her "favorables", at this point in time, mean absolutely nothing in terms of how she would do on the campaign trail in a race for the highest office in the land. Frankly, I think Bernie would do better against Trump than Michelle and I think Bernie would lose 49 to 50 states.

I still maintain that, IF the economy and the stock market hold up for the next 8 months AND Trump does NOT do something incredibly stupid, he will easily beat ANY Democrat.

Time will tell.

You are 99.999 percent right. But if there is a "hung convention," there could be a compromise candidate emerge after several ballots.

[budwom]

Party leader: "Bernie, you won 40% of the delegates but the other 60% were clearly voting against you. The other 60% are all backing xxxx and that will be the nominee. But we know your supporters are going to be upset and we probably cannot win if they stay home. We want to make some of your ideas a core of the platform. We want you to be a face of the party. We want you to be VP. Please say yes, because saying no will mean 4 more years of Donald Trump."

You really think he is so "my way or the highway" set in his ways that he would rather be known as the guy who gifted Trump a second term than be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Bernie is absolutely not going to be VP for a President who does not share his fundamental principles. As far as calling this "my way or the highway," well, I think that's a tad harsh. A Prez and VP ought to be pretty compatible on major issues (not that all of them have been, by any means) and he's simply not going to back policies (as a VP should) he doesn't believe in. Like him or not, it's a fairly principled stand. VPs don't get to influence much of anything.

I guess I just don't really subscribe to the notion that Bernie as VP is going to inspire a whole lot of his supporters.