2020 Presidential Election

[Acymetric]

This probably starts veering a little off topic but Sanders has always held the Democratic Party at arms length so it seems reasonable that’s how they should handle him. He’s the longest serving Independent and NOT a Democrat, he just caucuses with them and due to the binary party system has to run for President through the Dem process. I have no doubt if there was more promise running as a third party he would absolutely do so. All that is to say, it’s not DNC’s job to bend over backward for a non-Democrat candidate.

Sure, but it is probably in their best interest not to alienate his supporters.

[bundabergdevil]

Sure, but it is probably in their best interest not to alienate his supporters.

Sure. Trump managed to thread the needle. RNC went from actively hostile to all in. DNC will do the same if Sanders gains (more) momentum.

[Acymetric]

Sure. Trump managed to thread the needle. RNC went from actively hostile to all in. DNC will do the same if Sanders gains (more) momentum.

I agree, it is very similar. I was more referring to another candidate getting the nomination and needing to court some of those Sanders voters (although Sanders supporters also tend to be some of the more vocal Never Trumpers, so maybe it is easier than I think it is).

[Rich]

Well, aside from the Giants, Titans, Panthers, Texans (duh!), Cardinals and Jets...it can be a challenge! Much easier to name the city.

And technically, the Giants and Jets aren't even in New York since they both play in New Jersey

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And technically, the Giants and Jets aren't even in New York since they both play in New Jersey

That's all well and good, but I don't see it as an intellectually elite exercise.

I mean, would you argue that knowing the location of the biggest NASCAR tracks is a liberal exercise?

[PackMan97]

And technically, the Giants and Jets aren't even in New York since they both play in New Jersey

I am ashamed. See...this geography stuff isn't easy.

[budwom]

This probably starts veering a little off topic but Sanders has always held the Democratic Party at arms length so it seems reasonable that’s how they should handle him. He’s the longest serving Independent and NOT a Democrat, he just caucuses with them and due to the binary party system has to run for President through the Dem process. I have no doubt if there was more promise running as a third party he would absolutely do so. All that is to say, it’s not DNC’s job to bend over backward for a non-Democrat candidate.

It is absolutely true that Bernie has historically held the Demo party at arms length; however, his oft stated reason for doing so was that there was precious little difference between the two parties...hence his name for them, the DemoCans.
This is pretty much what you tend to get with a two party system, vs the very wide range of parties and philosophies in Western European democracies, where you can have far right, far left, middle, Green, other. Yet sometimes these various groups often can work together to form governments.

People may choose to doubt whether a lot of people (many young) are not thrilled with this restriction of choice, but I think it's quite real, and as others have noted on this thread, it would behoove the Democrats to find a way to woo them.

As far as the term Bernie Bros...well, I read a very wide range of political stuff, like many on this list, and I have yet to run into a single Bernie Bro, nor any reliable estimate of how many there really are...I suspect that my religious avoidance of (anti) Social Media is to blame, an avoidance which seems to do me some good since I never end up worried about who has followed, or unfollowed, or defriended, or unfriended me. Whatever. Saddling Bernie with the sins of crude loudmouths makes little sense to me.

[Troublemaker]

Happy Iowa Caucus Day, everyone! What's the sports analogy? Tonight the conference play-offs begin!

Predictions, anyone?

I'll go with: as a result of tonight's results, some time this week, 538 will follow suit with the election prediction markets and have Bernie as the favorite in the D race.

[budwom]

Predictions, anyone?

I'll go with: as a result of tonight's results, some time this week, 538 will follow suit with the election prediction markets and have Bernie as the favorite in the D race.

Regardless of who wins, I just can't see making any long term predictions about the race unless Biden really underperforms to a major level. Much depends upon who stays in the race, and for how long (and who chooses to get in, I suppose).

[OldPhiKap]

Predictions, anyone?

I'll go with: as a result of tonight's results, some time this week, 538 will follow suit with the election prediction markets and have Bernie as the favorite in the D race.

There are like four different counts tonight, so I think several folks may be able to claim a victory. But my guess is that Bernie and Biden get some separation from the pack, with Bernie doing better and a general freak-out amongst the establishment Dems following.

I'll say Pete, Warren and Amy in the second tranche in that rough order.

[El_Diablo]

I am ashamed. See...this geography stuff isn't easy.

You don't go around claiming to have the "highest IQ" or to be an extremely stable genius though, so I don't think anyone will give you a hard time.

[bundabergdevil]

Predictions, anyone?

I'll go with: as a result of tonight's results, some time this week, 538 will follow suit with the election prediction markets and have Bernie as the favorite in the D race.

I’m putting the line for number of corn dogs consumed by the candidates today at 19.

[CDu]

Predictions, anyone?

I'll go with: as a result of tonight's results, some time this week, 538 will follow suit with the election prediction markets and have Bernie as the favorite in the D race.

Unless Sanders wins by a wide margin, I doubt fivethirtyeight shifts to have Sanders as the favorite. As of now, they have Biden as the plurality favorite (43% to Sanders' 30%) for the nomination, and that's despite them predicting that Sanders wins Iowa.

Now, if Sanders totally dominates Iowa, maybe the narrative shifts. But I doubt there will be enough of a margin to push fivethirtyeight that far. But, we'll see soon enough.

There are like four different counts tonight, so I think several folks may be able to claim a victory. But my guess is that Bernie and Biden get some separation from the pack, with Bernie doing better and a general freak-out amongst the establishment Dems following.

I'll say Pete, Warren and Amy in the second tranche in that rough order.

I agree with this take. I think Sanders will do better than Biden (as expected), and the needle will shift a little more towards a tight race between Biden and Sanders, but with Biden still the favorite.

It will be interesting to see if Klobuchar and Warren get enough support to stay viable through the caucuses, or if their supporters jump ship to Biden/Sanders as the day/night goes on.

[JasonEvans]

It will be interesting to see if Klobuchar and Warren get enough support to stay viable through the caucuses, or if their supporters jump ship to Biden/Sanders as the day/night goes on.

So, if you are in the Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Warren campaigns your nightmare tonight is that Biden and Sanders both get 30%+ and turn this into a 2 person race. While there may be 3 tickets out of Iowa, if you are a distant third then your ticket ain't gonna get you very far. The thing that keeps everyone alive for a little while longer is more uncertainty if one of that second tier is able to finish first or second. Sure, it probably largely benefits the person who comes in second, but any uncertainty beyond the top two is something that may give some viability to the others.

I am not some ultra-genius for recognizing this. I am sure there are people in the campaigns of these folks who understand this as well as I do. That is why I suspect at least two of these campaigns... and maybe all three... will cut a deal.

Here is how it would work. Lets says Klobuchar and Buttigieg make a deal. Precinct captains for them would be told that if they fail to reach viability (15%) they should join up in the second round with the other one who is viable. So, at a precinct where Buttigieg got 19% and Klobuchar got 10%, the Klobuchar folks (assuming they listen to the precinct captain) could get Buttigieg close to 30% in the final vote.

Now, can you imagine if there was also a deal between Buttigieg and Warren? Let's say that precinct looked like this after the initial vote: Sanders 29, Biden 24, Bittigieg 19, Warren 13, Klobuchar 10, Yang 3, Steyer 2. Now, lets say a good portion of those Warren and Klobuchar voters went along with the deal and went to Buttigieg giving us a final tally of: Buttigieg 38, Sanders 33, Biden 29. It ain't likely but it also ain't impossible to see that happening.

This year, for the first time, the Democrats are going to make the initial vote totals known in addition to the final vote totals. I think it will be very interesting to see who benefits the most from second choice voting and it could be a sign about where the race goes in future states as the field narrows more and more. It will also be interesting to see who the media spins as the "winner" in Iowa given there is at least some chance we will see different winners of the first vote and the final vote.

-Jason "I am so excited for tonight... and I think there will be something in the numbers that is truly shocking" Evans

[bundabergdevil]

You don't go around claiming to have the "highest IQ" or to be an extremely stable genius though, so I don't think anyone will give you a hard time.

When you post on DBR, you don’t need to claim those things. They go without saying...

[CameronBornAndBred]

Since 1980, only 2 candidates have not won and been the nominee. Dukakis came in 3rd with a respectable 22%, but in 1992 some guy named Bill Clinton didn't even 3% of the votes, and came in 4th. (Tom Harkin destroyed everbody that year with 76.5%. Who is Tom Harkin?)

[bundabergdevil]

Since 1980, only 2 candidates have not won and been the nominee. Dukakis came in 3rd with a respectable 22%, but in 1992 some guy named Bill Clinton didn't even 3% of the votes, and came in 4th. (Tom Harkin destroyed everbody that year with 76.5%. Who is Tom Harkin?)

Point taken but in fairness, Tom Harkin was an Iowa senator at the time...

[OldPhiKap]

Since 1980, only 2 candidates have not won and been the nominee. Dukakis came in 3rd with a respectable 22%, but in 1992 some guy named Bill Clinton didn't even 3% of the votes, and came in 4th. (Tom Harkin destroyed everbody that year with 76.5%. Who is Tom Harkin?)

To be fair, Harkin represented Iowa in Congress for 40 years and was gonna crush everyone. Still, Clinton was able to follow that 4th place showing with a 2nd place showing in New Hampshire and declared himself the "comeback kid." Damn if it didn't work.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Point taken but in fairness, Tom Harkin was an Iowa senator at the time...

To be fair, Harkin represented Iowa in Congress for 40 years and was gonna crush everyone. Still, Clinton was able to follow that 4th place showing with a 2nd place showing in New Hampshire and declared himself the "comeback kid." Damn if it didn't work.

Aha! That explains that pretty well, then. "Uncommitted" came in 2nd place that year. I never really trusted that guy, could never make his mind up about anything.

[Acymetric]

So, if you are in the Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Warren campaigns your nightmare tonight is that Biden and Sanders both get 30%+ and turn this into a 2 person race. While there may be 3 tickets out of Iowa, if you are a distant third then your ticket ain't gonna get you very far. The thing that keeps everyone alive for a little while longer is more uncertainty if one of that second tier is able to finish first or second. Sure, it probably largely benefits the person who comes in second, but any uncertainty beyond the top two is something that may give some viability to the others.

I am not some ultra-genius for recognizing this. I am sure there are people in the campaigns of these folks who understand this as well as I do. That is why I suspect at least two of these campaigns... and maybe all three... will cut a deal.

Here is how it would work. Lets says Klobuchar and Buttigieg make a deal. Precinct captains for them would be told that if they fail to reach viability (15%) they should join up in the second round with the other one who is viable. So, at a precinct where Buttigieg got 19% and Klobuchar got 10%, the Klobuchar folks (assuming they listen to the precinct captain) could get Buttigieg close to 30% in the final vote.

Now, can you imagine if there was also a deal between Buttigieg and Warren? Let's say that precinct looked like this after the initial vote: Sanders 29, Biden 24, Bittigieg 19, Warren 13, Klobuchar 10, Yang 3, Steyer 2. Now, lets say a good portion of those Warren and Klobuchar voters went along with the deal and went to Buttigieg giving us a final tally of: Buttigieg 38, Sanders 33, Biden 29. It ain't likely but it also ain't impossible to see that happening.

This year, for the first time, the Democrats are going to make the initial vote totals known in addition to the final vote totals. I think it will be very interesting to see who benefits the most from second choice voting and it could be a sign about where the race goes in future states as the field narrows more and more. It will also be interesting to see who the media spins as the "winner" in Iowa given there is at least some chance we will see different winners of the first vote and the final vote.

-Jason "I am so excited for tonight... and I think there will be something in the numbers that is truly shocking" Evans

The only kink I see there is that none of those candidates really overlap in the way you would expect for some kind of deal/exchange to take place. Not sure I see it.