And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

Started by JBS, June 26, 2019, 05:40:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amw

If Biden does collapse somehow (perhaps literally... the gaffes certainly make one wonder if age is catching up with him, in a way it hasn't caught up with Sanders) I do think Sanders and Warren will be the two left standing. Warren has a seemingly inexhaustible base of white urban/suburban professionals whereas Sanders seems to have become entrenched among blue collar and service industry unions. Neither candidate has much support among the black & Latino base of the party, which still favours Biden, and doesn't seem likely to switch allegiance to Kamala Harris no matter how much she touts her prosecutorial record and "more relatable version of Hillary" vibe. I think if anyone can get Biden past the finish line it'll be black churches in the south, and if he drops out, they may simply not vote.

71 dB

Quote from: JBS on August 21, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
They tried that in the late 60s and 70s. Result Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush Jr.  The only Democrat in that run was not re-elected and was elected in the first place mainly because Ford pardoned Nixon. It's only when Democrats moved centerwards and picked Clinton that they started winning again.

Take this as your rule of thumb: the more you like a candidate on policy grounds, the easier it would be for Trump to beat them.

I'm guessing you think I'm a conservative or right wing. I'm not, at least in American terms. I am actually moderate/slightly left of center. Now calibrate your idea of the American voter from that peg.

The World has changed quite a lot since 60's and 70's and what worked or didn't work back then doesn't apply anymore. In the 90's Clinton was still a "winning" name. In 2016 Clinton lost to a reality tv baffoon. That's how much the world has changed. Your old rule of thumbs are obsolete. Now policy matters because regular people are struggling and they have seen how four decades of corporatism took them nowhere.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

71 dB

Quote from: amw on August 21, 2019, 11:50:20 PM
Neither candidate has much support among the black & Latino base of the party, which still favours Biden.

You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media. Bernie had weak name recognition in 2016. That has changed. If anything, age — across race — is going to be Sanders biggest hurdle in 2020.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

Florestan

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media.

Well, I've always suspected amw to be on the payroll of the imperialist bourgeoisie. I'm glad you noticed it as well.
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

amw

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media.
I mean, this is more the narrative of polling organisations, some of which are corporations and others of which are universities, and all of which believe Biden is leading significantly in South Carolina (which is approximately 35% black). SC is one of the first states to vote in primary season, and Sanders lost it by 46 points in 2016, so I guess you could argue he's improved his position by being now only down 10-20 points.

I don't think Biden is necessarily beloved of black southerners (though his social & cultural conservatism probably does appeal to them to some extent) but there is a narrative about him being dependable and a known quantity, and of course primary voters tend to be older and more likely to own their own homes, two things that do predict Biden support across racial lines.

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2019, 03:00:15 AM
Well, I've always suspected amw to be on the payroll of the imperialist bourgeoisie. I'm glad you noticed it as well.
Ok, that's a little unfair. There are about 60 Beethoven string quartet cycles out there and they're not gonna buy themselves.

drogulus


     
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 04:55:30 AM

I don't think Biden is necessarily beloved of black southerners (though his social & cultural conservatism probably does appeal to them to some extent) but there is a narrative about him being dependable and a known quantity, and of course primary voters tend to be older and more likely to own their own homes, two things that do predict Biden support across racial lines.


     I think this is right, though it depends not only on the perception that Biden can win but that he has a better chance than other Tier 1 candidates. That might not turn out to be the case. In a race against Trump the top candidates are tightly bunched even though against each other they are not.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

schnittkease

#366
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 07:05:05 AM
In a race against Trump the top candidates are tightly bunched even though against each other they are not.

Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her 2020 campaign.

(Server is mighty slow today as well.)

drogulus

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her campaign.

     She is a Dem, and she supported the Dem against the insurgent. Sharing some values with Sanders wasn't enough, like it wasn't enough for me.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

schnittkease

Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
     She is a Dem, and she supported the Dem against the insurgent. Sharing some values with Sanders wasn't enough, like it wasn't enough for me.

It's more than just "some values" that she shares with Sanders...

Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.

71 dB

#369
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her 2020 campaign.
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.

Yes, that's what the polls are telling, but do you think Joe "my time is up/nothing will change" Biden will in the end do well against Trump? I don't. In fact I believe more in Warren's abilities beating Trump. Biden has been high in the polls because of name recognition and nostalgy for the Obama years, but the more people hear him talk the more he loses support.

If it's true Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016 because of VP offer that was really dirty trick from Hillary.

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
(Server is mighty slow today as well.)

Yep...  :-\ Time to boot the server?





Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

drogulus

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
It's more than just "some values" that she shares with Sanders...

Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.

      She would have done so regardless. It was the right move.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

schnittkease

Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:26:19 AM
      She would have done so regardless. It was the right move.

Not if she wanted to appear as a "progressive" candidate in 2020.

drogulus

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 10:31:18 AM
Not if she wanted to appear as a "progressive" candidate in 2020.

     Who doesn't know she is a progressive? Her Hillary endorsement shows she's a Dem that knows how to play the inside game, her policies show she is a progressive. Sanders never misses an opportunity to show he's a self-righteous dogmatist who struts around the edges of a party he is too good to join.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

schnittkease

Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:45:27 AM
Sanders never misses an opportunity to show he's a self-righteous dogmatist who struts around the edges of a party he is too good to join.

Who gives a damn about "party loyalty" when your job is to vote for the most qualified candidate? He caucuses with the Democrats, and that's enough for me. BTW - what did loyalty over logic do for the Republicans?

drogulus

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 12:06:04 PM
Who gives a damn about "party loyalty" when your job is to vote for the most qualified candidate? He caucuses with the Democrats, and that's enough for me.

      I don't know. Not me, apparently, since I'd vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. I don't value loyalty to party much, I do value the smarts Warren exhibited by knowing what value it had for her.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

schnittkease

Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 02:08:26 PM
      I don't know. Not me, apparently, since I'd vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. I don't value loyalty to party much, I do value the smarts Warren exhibited by knowing what value it had for her.

She would be an idiot not to see the political advantages of endorsing Clinton. It's not a high bar to pass.

amw

Sanders also endorsed Clinton in 2016, although only after he lost to her.

amw

I would probably like Sanders better if he hadn't built his entire career around doing the "smart thing" and essentially becoming a democrat in all but name. His politics were much better in the 1980s and he has drifted far to the right since then & much of it is due to his careerism in attaching himself to the Democratic Party.

Of course there are no "good" american politicians—every political figure in the USA with politics I'd consider voting for is in jail, assassinated or in exile—but Sanders's brand depends on people not recognising that and thinking he's an electable equivalent to Malcolm X or Assata Shakur or Angela Davis etc (or name your preferred american socialist here, if you have one)

JBS

Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 06:47:56 PM
I would probably like Sanders better if he hadn't built his entire career around doing the "smart thing" and essentially becoming a democrat in all but name. His politics were much better in the 1980s and he has drifted far to the right since then & much of it is due to his careerism in attaching himself to the Democratic Party.

Of course there are no "good" american politicians—every political figure in the USA with politics I'd consider voting for is in jail, assassinated or in exile—but Sanders's brand depends on people not recognising that and thinking he's an electable equivalent to Malcolm X or Assata Shakur or Angela Davis etc (or name your preferred american socialist here, if you have one)

Sorry, the idea that Sanders is anything like Malcolm X or Angela Davis made me laugh so hard I didn't hear what you said.
:P

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

JBS

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:09:45 AM
The World has changed quite a lot since 60's and 70's and what worked or didn't work back then doesn't apply anymore. In the 90's Clinton was still a "winning" name. In 2016 Clinton lost to a reality tv baffoon. That's how much the world has changed. Your old rule of thumbs are obsolete. Now policy matters because regular people are struggling and they have seen how four decades of corporatism took them nowhere.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s, so I can tell you the differences are not immense:

We didn't have computers  or cell phones.
Gays had to hide their gayness.
Communism and the Soviet Union were almost synonyms. The difference was Maoist China.

Leftism was, and still is, a fringe of American culture. What you, in your ignorance deride as corporatist policies, are popular not because corporate media advocates them , but because they are in general moderate, middle of the road. The media corporations don't advocate positions that benefit them. They advocate positions that gain them viewers and therefore revenue. Just like businesses are expected to do. They may benefit the oligarchy, but they benefit most Americans.  So that's why they are popular.

As to Hillary: she lost because she was personally corrupt, and arrogant. Her policies were not why people voted for Trump, so don't think Trump's victory was a rejection of corporatist policies. It was a rejection of the person named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk