2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Venom

Bernie Sanders will win in 2020 provided he's healthy.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to run another boring, centrist establishment candidate to impede him in this climate I'll probably lose hope in them forever.

Get behind Bernie if you want to win.

Oh, gawd! Not again. "Bernie in 2020: I kissed Russia's Ass First!" The Republicans would crucify him.

Bernie is currently older than Reagan was when he LEFT office! He will be 79 on Sept 8, 2020.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by This is The End

A good chunk of Americans are too, ahem, "primal" to vote for a President with too many syllables in their name. I wish I were joking.

Just like a candidate is more likely to win if they are at least somewhat good looking, they are more likely to win the fewer syllables they have in their name.

Those primal voters aren't going to vote for any Democrat. You're describing the failed genetic experiments and products of incest who make up Trump's base. I don't think it will be an issue with the "lesser of two evils" voters or the Obama voters who stayed home for Clinton.

[applecorped]

"failed genetic experiments and products of incest who make up Trump's base"


Mmmmm.....deplorables 2.0

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Oh, gawd! Not again. "Bernie in 2020: I kissed Russia's Ass First!" The Republicans would crucify him.

Bernie is currently older than Reagan was when he LEFT office! He will be 79 on Sept 8, 2020.

Lol?

Sanders is adamant that Russia is a foe, or at least that it views the U.S. as a foe. He's just a bit hesistant when it comes to sanctions, depending on whatever's attached to them.

His ideas fare well with the general opinion; They considered him a fringe candidate in 2015 until they discovered he was just what the Democrats used to be decades earlier.

I am sad to see that he will be older, but hopefully if it doesn't work, a young upstart can continue where he left off.

[Trebuchet]

Bernie, and Hillary, and Lieberman, and Trump are too damn old. Hell, some of them are even older than me!

[Stacyhs]

Sadly, Hillary is done. I'd have voted for her again. Dems need someone who is on the younger side and has some charisma. Someone younger people can relate to. Whoever it is has to fire up the party. And someone not stupid enough to use fake tan that makes them look like a Cheetoh.

[Slings and Arrows]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Sadly, Hillary is done. I'd have voted for her again. Dems need someone who is on the younger side and has some charisma. Someone younger people can relate to. Whoever it is has to fire up the party. And someone not stupid enough to use fake tan that makes them look like a Cheetoh.

Bernie Sanders!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Venom

Sanders is adamant that Russia is a foe, or at least that it views the U.S. as a foe. He's just a bit hesistant when it comes to sanctions, depending on whatever's attached to them.

Great bumper sticker!

I’m not meaning to be snarky, but this completely misunderstands how elections are fought.

Trump:”Comrade Sanders loved the Soviet Union! Sure he wants to put you back to work...in the salt mines!”

Sanders:”No, no, I am adamant that Russia is a foe, or at least it regard us as one...

Trump: “keep telling yourself that Comrade Sanders!”

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think this guy has a chance as president, but if he wins it will look similar to when Jack Ryan had to pull out of a race and the GOP lost to some good looking nobody with a weird name in Illinois. Congress, not Senate, but still you have to keep these guys with weird names from making it to DC.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Bernie, and Hillary, and Lieberman, and Trump are too damn old. Hell, some of them are even older than me!

I really think a lot of the younger "Best and Brightest" are not interested in politics, frankly.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

Bernie Sanders!

Need I remind you of Trump's age?

[dudalb]

[quote=Craig4;12407881]Those primal voters aren't going to vote for any Democrat. You're describing the failed genetic experiments and products of incest who make up Trump's base. I don't think it will be an issue with the "lesser of two evils" voters or the Obama voters who stayed home for ]Clinton.[/QUOTE]

A mistake they will not repeat. I think there was an lot of "She will win anyway" among normally Democratic voters.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Great bumper sticker!

I’m not meaning to be snarky, but this completely misunderstands how elections are fought.

Trump:”Comrade Sanders loved the Soviet Union! Sure he wants to put you back to work...in the salt mines!”

Sanders:”No, no, I am adamant that Russia is a foe, or at least it regard us as one...

Trump: “keep telling yourself that Comrade Sanders!”

Of course on the campaign trail Sanders would not add so many qualifiers to his points either and I won't claim to have a tenth of his charisma, even at his old age.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I don't think this guy has a chance as president, but if he wins it will look similar to when Jack Ryan had to pull out of a race and the GOP lost to some good looking nobody with a weird name in Illinois. Congress, not Senate, but still you have to keep these guys with weird names from making it to DC.

This is the guy we should all cheer for. It'll make the Republicans' heads explode, en masse, like that scene at the end of the first Kingsman movie. The left-leaning press doesn't mention his grampa and the right-leaning never fails to, I'm sure. Gramps was one of the featured terrorists at Munich in '72.

[WilliamSeger]

If Trump isn't on the 2020 ballot for whatever reason, Pence certainly will be. When I saw Pence debate Kaine and attempt to defend outrageous things Trump had recently said by simply denying he said them, I pegged him as a consummate opportunist -- a pseudo-Christian hypocrite who would trade his integrity for power even if it meant lying to defend his lying, pussy-grabbing, unchristian running mate. I now think I was partially right except that I'd replace "hypocrite" with "nutjob."

Here's an interview with the author of the book The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence.
Synopsis: "Pence thinks God wants him to be president -- and Trump's scandals are how he'll get there."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Venom

Quote:

Great bumper sticker!
I’m not meaning to be snarky, but this completely misunderstands how elections are fought.
Trump:”Comrade Sanders loved the Soviet Union! Sure he wants to put you back to work...in the salt mines!”
Sanders:”No, no, I am adamant that Russia is a foe, or at least it regard us as one...
Trump: “keep telling yourself that Comrade Sanders!”

Of course on the campaign trail Sanders would not add so many qualifiers to his points either and I won't claim to have a tenth of his charisma, even at his old age.

Yes, and we can be sure that no candidate ever has had to deal with anything that they didn't plan out ahead of time.

[Brainster]

Elizabeth Warren is making some moves:

Quote:

Elizabeth Warren’s had a deceptively busy last few weeks. She dropped one long-shot policy proposal that would try to remake corporate America, then another that aims to actually drain the Washington swamp. She put restrictions on her own fundraising practices and opened her financial books, and bid two staffers farewell as they shipped up to new jobs in New Hampshire.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Oh, gawd! Not again. "Bernie in 2020: I kissed Russia's Ass First!" The Republicans would crucify him.

Bernie is currently older than Reagan was when he LEFT office! He will be 79 on Sept 8, 2020.

Bernie is simply too damn old for the Presidency.
And anyway the post in discussion shows an incredible denial of the realities of American Politics.
It's the Lost Tribe theory of politics....that there is a vast, hidden pool of left wing voters who will turn out if the proper candidate is ran.
I hate to say it, but some of the Breniebots can give competiion to the Trumpies when it comes to denying reality. A left wing Personalty Cult is just as scary and dangerous as a right wing one.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Bernie is simply too damn old for the Presidency.
And anyway the post in discussion shows an incredible denial of the realities of American Politics.
It's the Lost Tribe theory of politics....that there is a vast, hidden pool of left wing voters who will turn out if the proper candidate is ran.
I hate to say it, but some of the Breniebots can give competiion to the Trumpies when it comes to denying reality. A left wing Personalty Cult is just as scary and dangerous as a right wing one.

That would only be true if Bernie Sanders were running against a Democratic nomination as well as Trump.

However, if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

That said, I am not arguing that Sanders would definitely win. His age and his long track record will certainly be exploited by his opponents.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That would only be true if Bernie Sanders were running against a Democratic nomination as well as Trump.

However, if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

That said, I am not arguing that Sanders would definitely win. His age and his long track record will certainly be exploited by his opponents.

Well, that's not the only thing. He'd also have to not lose a few thousand voters in MN, NH, ME, CO, NV, NM, NJ, etc....

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That would only be true if Bernie Sanders were running against a Democratic nomination as well as Trump.

However, if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

That said, I am not arguing that Sanders would definitely win. His age and his long track record will certainly be exploited by his opponents.

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

I agree, and with a similar amount of objective evidence.
I thought we (The Democrsts) were doomed by having two unelectable candidates leading the pack- but I voted Clinton in the primaries because I thought she would have a better chance than Sanders.

I remember (with rue) that I was thrilled when the Republicans selected Trump. I thought " what luck! The Republicans have selected the only candidate who could possibly lose to Clinton! ". Clearly, my enthusiasm was misplaced

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

This is all looking back to the future territory. However, in my opinion, Sanders would have gotten totally trounced by Trump. The opposition to him would have energized even more conservatives who found Trump odious, to vote against Sanders, and many who found Hillary tolerable would abandon Sanders.

All guesswork. Not going to argue it, because it's a pointless exercise in mass mind-reading.

I’m not arguing that Sanders would have necessarily won. I am just saying that it would not require a “vast lost tribe” of voters who were only waiting for the right candidate. Generally speaking, the Democrats and Republicans win when they mobilize their bases in the right areas. The Republicans did that because Republicans would vote for almost anyone on their team.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

This is the guy we should all cheer for. It'll make the Republicans' heads explode, en masse, like that scene at the end of the first Kingsman movie. The left-leaning press doesn't mention his grampa and the right-leaning never fails to, I'm sure. Gramps was one of the featured terrorists at Munich in '72.

Will not be old enough in 2020.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I’m not arguing that Sanders would have necessarily won. I am just saying that it would not require a “vast lost tribe” of voters who were only waiting for the right candidate. Generally speaking, the Democrats and Republicans win when they mobilize their bases in the right areas. The Republicans did that because Republicans would vote for almost anyone on their team.

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

[The_Animus]

Actually we're a 20, 10, 20, 50 nation, because half the population doesn't vote. So you either have to swing more of that 10% independant, or convince some of that 50% to actually vote.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Actually we're a 20, 10, 20, 50 nation, because half the population doesn't vote. So you either have to swing more of that 10% independant, or convince some of that 50% to actually vote.

What do the two 20s and the ten represent? You start with an incorrect base figure. 58% of eligible voters voted in 2016, not 50%

Current self identification of those 58% would be 28% GOP, 27% Dem, 43% Independent*. Taken as percentages of actual voters that would give us:

GOP 16.2%
Dems 15.6%
Ind 24.5%

So more like 16- 16 - 25 - 40, and a candidate or party needs to convince that stay-at-home 42% to get off their asses.

*That's from Gallup's monthly poll on self-identified party affiliation. The GOP ain't doing so great but the Dems are in deep ****. They are at a historical low of 27%. My hunch is that Not Trump works with Independents but not with party devotees. Dem voters expect more than "Hey! Don't We All Hate Trump? (and the crowd starts chanting **** Him Up!, **** Him Up!). The Democratic Party has no leadership or leader at the moment. The wounded ducks in the Clinton house, the New York Jewboy socialist, and that colored fella and his wife,..... none of them are running in 2020 (or '18). None of them has stepped up to head the Party, either. A front-runner better come out of the '18 elections or the Dems are going to have trouble beating Trump or Pence.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by Brainster

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for
a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for
a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by
the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately
liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either
side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you
lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from
the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to
the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never
going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens
or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties.

Actually, it's more of a 47.5% to 5.0% to 47.5% nation.

Quote:

What Everyone Gets Wrong About Independent Voters by Joshua Holland


So rather than thinking that close to 40 percent of the electorate are “gettable”
independents that the parties must win over, it’s better to focus on those political
scientists call “floating voters”—people who have cast votes for both parties in
the past. That group has shrunk dramatically as the parties have moved further
apart, and now only represents around 5 percent of the electorate.

The irony is that as the parties sharpen their ability to reach their own voters,
they have less incentive to find common ground, which tends to piss off their
strongest partisans. For better or worse, that’s likely to continue to drive more
polarization and turn off more voters—it’s a vicious or virtual cycle, depending
on your perspective. And the fact that a lot of people call themselves
independents is probably the least interesting thing about this dynamic.

I'm worried that we may see another 2004 political vacuum polarization.

[Venom]

I see a compulsion to keep giving establishment Democrats the benefit of the doubt when it comes to attracting voters. That despite their horrid track record the past decade.

Democrats are their own worst enemy. No clear vision atm.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Brainster

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

That arithmetic works neatly if the election were simply a popular vote with the highest number of votes winning. But Trump is hardly anybody’s idea of a “moderate” whereas Clinton is a completely mainstream Democrat. He won because of the electoral college system which interferes with the arithmetic you are using.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Need I remind you of Trump's age?

If I'm not mistaken, Sanders is even five years or so older. At these ages, an additional five years kinda matter.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Brainster

This is basically a 40-20-40 nation. Forty percent of the people will vote for a Republican no matter what, and forty percent of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what. That means that the election is decided by the 20% who are willing to vote either way. Thus you need moderately liberal and moderately conservative positions to win--extremists on either side can only succeed with a strong wind at their backs.

There are any number of ways to prove this. Consider that for every vote you lose in the middle with an extremist candidate, you have to pick up two from the "Lost Tribe," because a vote you lose in the middle is probably going to the other major party candidate, whereas a vote on the wings is almost never going that way--either the person doesn't vote or they vote for the Greens or the Libertarians or one of the other third parties..

I think that's a usually pretty reasonable way to suss things, but clearly, that's not what happened in 2016. Trump was far from a middle or even reasonable candidate. He wasn't quite the traditional view of conservative values, but surely no where near the middle.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I think that's a usually pretty reasonable way to suss things, but clearly, that's not what happened in 2016. Trump was far from a middle or even reasonable candidate. He wasn't quite the traditional view of conservative values, but surely no where near the middle.

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

I don't think the election of Trump is a unicorn, but it has been a black swan.

There is no way to go back to the older, more rational situation. You have to deal with the new situation and try to turn that into something more rational while incorporating the updated information.

To keep the animal metaphor going, you can't un-**** that goat. 90% of Republicans approve of Trump and his presidency still. They're goat ******* now, so if you want any sort of rational situation to come about you have to deal with the fact that we know that now, rather than suspect that. You have to deal with around a third of the population willing to believe obvious lies (or behave as if they do), attacks on the very underlying principles of our society, and abandon their own 'principles', if they can be convinced it will get them 'power'. They will believe and do whatever they need to, when they need to, and then the opposite when it's demanded of them.

It's not enough that you get them to stop ******* goats, you have to get them to stop being willing to **** goats. Or unite against them so their goat ******* can't do as much harm.

That went strange fast.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I don't think the election of Trump is a unicorn, but it has been a black swan.

Maybe a Discworld Unicorn....

[This is The End]

Originally Posted by Venom

I see a compulsion to keep giving establishment Democrats the benefit of the doubt when it comes to attracting voters. That despite their horrid track record the past decade.

What are you talking about?? In the "past decade" they won 2 of the 3 presidential elections. And they won all 3 as far as the total number of "voters" is concerned.

In fact, in the past seven presidential elections the Democrats only lost the popular vote ONCE.

The Democrats "problem" is that a huge chunk of the voting block are piece of **** racist, sexist, anti-science, creator cult members. Those people need to be removed from the gene pool, not catered to. So I say good for the Democrats in not doing so.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Trump is a unicorn in so many ways, and the dynamic of him versus Hillary was even more unique. It's tempting to say that it teaches us little about the normal alignment of the country, and I suspect once Trump departs from the scene things will revert to a more rational situation. Of course, that is of little value in discussing the 2020 election (assuming Trump is the GOP candidate again).

It is possible that someone like Warren could bring the northern blue-collar voters (who put Trump over the top) back to the Democrats. In sum, I think we're in uncharted waters.

Exactly! And this is what I was saying about Bernie Sanders:

Quote:

if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination, then the only thing that needs to be true is that a few thousand voters in the rust belt states vote for him instead of Trump. Trump only won by a small margin in swing states, not because of a "vast, hidden pool" who stayed away.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

So more like 16- 16 - 25 - 40

Dude, that adds up to 97%!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by This is The End

What are you talking about?? In the "past decade" they won 2 of the 3 presidential elections. And they won all 3 as far as the total number of "voters" is concerned.

In fact, in the past seven presidential elections the Democrats only lost the popular vote ONCE.

Don't you mean twice?

ETA: Oops, see Mumbles below.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Don't you mean twice?

Nope. Clinton in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008, Obama in 2012, Clinton in 2016. BUsh in 2004 is the only time in the past 7 elections - and he was riding off post-9/11 unity even then.