2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Page 8

Brainster · 5th December 2018, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Point well made.

A nitpick though -- I don't think Dukakis fits the model.

Cuomo and Hart probably would have fit better, but Cuomo didn't run and Hart imploded in 1987 with the whole Donna Rice thing, withdrawing from the campaign and then trying to get back in at the last minute.

Delvo · 5th December 2018, 07:15 PM

I don't know of a definition of this "turn" concept that could apply to anybody but Hillary. I've never seen anything else like the way the Hillary wing of the Democrats kept obsessively pushing and pushing her at us over & over & over since Bill was President. If there's anybody else who ever had a "turn", then an entirely different word is needed for the Hillary thing.

acbytesla · 5th December 2018, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I don't think she got the nomination because it was her turn. I think that she got the nomination despite the fact that it was her turn. Certainly very few political observers thought going into the 2016 Democratic primaries that Hillary was going to have a difficult time of it against a 75-year-old democratic socialist.

But she did get the nomination, and she was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. The Democrats just really seem to have something against going with the obvious candidate, and indeed if you look at their history, you can see why.

1956: Nominated Adlai Stevenson, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1960: Nominated JFK, while Stevenson (who had been a sacrificial lamb in 1952 and 1956 against the overwhelmingly popular Eisenhower) was the man whose turn it was. Democrats won
1964: Sitting president nominated.
1968: Nominated Hubert Humphrey, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1972: Nominated George McGovern, while Ed Muskie was arguably the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1976: Nominated Jimmy Carter. I don't know if there really was a candidate whose turn it was; you could argue Sarge Shriver (who had been McGovern's running mate in 1972). Democrats won.
1980: Sitting president nominated.
1984: Nominated Walter Mondale, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1988: Nominated Michael Dukakis, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
1992: Nominated Bill Clinton. You could make an argument for Sam Nunn or Mario Cuomo as being whose turn it was, but neither of them ran. Democrats won.
1996: Sitting president nominated.
2000: Nominated Al Gore, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2004: Nominated John Kerry, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.
2008: Nominated Barack Obama, while Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats won.
2012: Sitting president nominated.
2016: Nominated Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was. Democrats lost.

It's a small sample, but it sure looks like when the Democrats go for the candidate whose turn it is (other than sitting presidents) they lose.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis...but good point.

JoeMorgue · 6th December 2018, 06:31 AM

I'm not sure how "Hillary was run because it was 'her turn'" got turned into something that got made up.

"Her Turn" was literally considered for her campaign slogan by her own campaign.

Imhotep · 6th December 2018, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm not sure how "Hillary was run because it was 'her turn'" got turned into something that got made up.

"Her Turn" was literally considered for her campaign slogan by her own campaign.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Aren't campaign slogans "made up"? Isn't basically all politics outside of policy "made up"?

JoeMorgue · 6th December 2018, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Imhotep

I'm not sure I understand your point. Aren't campaign slogans "made up"? Isn't basically all politics outside of policy "made up"?

That people seeing an.... entitlement (maybe not exactly the word, but close) angle to Hillary Clinton's campaign aren't just making it up out of whole cloth.

Segnosaur · 6th December 2018, 10:17 AM

A bit tangentally related to the topic...

Some early estimates (based on 2018 mid-term results and Trump approval ratings) have the Democrats winning the 2020 election by ether 54 or 44 electoral votes (depending on how various factors are weighted).

https://observer.com/2018/12/2020-tr...te-prediction/

Now, the article does point out that there are a lot of unknowns... potential 3rd party runs, primary challengers, etc. Plus its pretty early, so the results should be viewed with some skepticism.

JoeMorgue · 6th December 2018, 10:18 AM

And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump.

Brainster · 6th December 2018, 11:26 AM

Deval Patrick says thanks, but no thanks:

Quote:

"After a lot of conversation, reflection and prayer, I've decided that a 2020 campaign for president is not for me. I've been overwhelmed by advice and encouragement from people from all over the country, known and unknown," Patrick said in a Facebook post.
"But knowing that the cruelty of our elections process would ultimately splash back on people whom Diane and I love, but who hadn't signed up for the journey, was more than I could ask," he said.

Patrick probably missed his window; he should have run in 2016.

crescent · 6th December 2018, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump.

Closer to 30%. The day before the election they gave Trump a 29% probability of winning. Just a few days before they had it as high as 35%. They were off, but not as far off as many people "remember" it to be.

Polling ended up being pretty close for this (2018) election, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

ETA: Earlier in this other thread, that is.

Segnosaur · 6th December 2018, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by crescent

Quote:

And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump.

Closer to 30%. The day before the election they gave Trump a 29% probability of winning. Just a few days before they had it as high as 35%. They were off, but not as far off as many people "remember" it to be.

Polling ended up being pretty close for this (2018) election, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Yeah, and even at 20% (or 29%) chance of victory, its not too far fetched for someone to win. Its not like predicting a snowstorm in July... a 20% chance means that Trump would have won 1 out of 5 elections.

Admittedly, I'm surprised at the fact that Trump won. And while part of that was due to polling predicting a Democratic victory, the biggest reason why I thought Trump would lose was because his campaign was what was called at the time a "dumpster fire", with accusations of racism, incompetence, etc.

JoeMorgue · 6th December 2018, 12:43 PM

Again I get that Trump winning didn't... break the concept of polling or statistics.

I'm just saying everything about Trump now is the same the same that was about Trump then and we got to take that into account.

Trump, love him or hate him, is a man that the traditional rules have a hard time accounting for.

Baylor · 6th December 2018, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Although the poll notes that Warren, Harris and Booker are polling in the low single digits, the fact is that they will have plenty of visibility over the next year, while it is hard to imagine Beto getting a lot of airtime.

I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president.

Foolmewunz · 7th December 2018, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Baylor

I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president.

I have this thing about preserving most ignoble postings for posterity. This, overall, is pretty damned disgusting.

angrysoba · 7th December 2018, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Deval Patrick says thanks, but no thanks:

Patrick probably missed his window; he should have run in 2016.

It wasn’t his turn.

angrysoba · 7th December 2018, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again I get that Trump winning didn't... break the concept of polling or statistics.

I'm just saying everything about Trump now is the same the same that was about Trump then and we got to take that into account.

Trump, love him or hate him, is a man that the traditional rules have a hard time accounting for.

Absolutely. I am amazed that there are already people spouting the wisdom that Trump is bound to lose (not being said here, I will add), despite the fact there is not even a clear Democratic candidate.

angrysoba · 7th December 2018, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by Baylor

I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president.

I don’t even want to know which gutter you have been swilling this from.

varwoche · 7th December 2018, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don’t even want to know which gutter you have been swilling this from.

I hear you. Ugly, bizarre, and big shock, brace yourself, false.

Sometimes it's informative to know the source. A few minutes with google suggests this could be original work. When I ponder Baylor's outstanding qualities, I'll be sure not to think of him/her as a copy-paste phony.

Distracted1 · 7th December 2018, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Baylor

I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president.

For gods' sake man, stop sugar coating it, tell us how you really feel.

Hellbound · 7th December 2018, 07:07 AM

You know what? I'd vote an actual sex worker for President.

I mean, they know how to get along with people, they can work through complicated situations, they have practice at exercising discretion...

And contrary to most of our politicians, at least when they **** you, they'll do it well

LSSBB · 15th December 2018, 11:57 PM

Biden is leading in Iowa.

Some real negatives for Hillary in that poll.

Stacko · 16th December 2018, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Biden is leading in Iowa.

Some real negatives for Hillary in that poll.

For context here are the results of the 12/2006 @DMRegister poll:

John Edwards 36%
Hillary Clinton 16%
Barack Obama 13%
Tom Vilsack 11%

At this point it's basically a name recognition poll.

varwoche · 16th December 2018, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

My dream ticket, based almost entirely on perceived winnability. Policy specifics are so far down my priority list that I don't care and won't care, not until this existential threat to American democracy is in the rear view mirror.

Gillibrand - O'Rourke

The geezers need to step aside.

Gillibrand was on Van Jones' program this weekend. I'm increasingly convinced she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. She sounds genuine in a way the other women contenders do not. She sounds like a person with convictions. She's confident. Her overall presentation is out of casting central.

The Trump situation is so dire I don't even care that she flaunted her faith. Right now, that's a feature, not a bug.

LSSBB · 16th December 2018, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

[indent]
At this point it's basically a name recognition poll.

That I don't deny. Campaigning hasn't begun yet in earnest.

Brainster · 17th December 2018, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Gillibrand was on Van Jones' program this weekend. I'm increasingly convinced she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. She sounds genuine in a way the other women contenders do not. She sounds like a person with convictions. She's confident. Her overall presentation is out of casting central.

The Trump situation is so dire I don't even care that she flaunted her faith. Right now, that's a feature, not a bug.

She's getting a lot of pushback for a tone-deaf tweet:

Quote:

Our future is:
Female
Intersectional
Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started.

Nate Silver had a pretty good response:

Quote:

I don't get how Gillibrand is trying to position herself. The type of people who respond positively to the term "intersectionality" are the type of people who will think she's a neo-liberal establishment shill and have 4 or 5 other candidates they like better.

The problem for Gillibrand is that she's positioned herself as a sensible moderate, but that is not what the Democrats are going to be looking for in 2020.

Dr. Keith · 17th December 2018, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

She's getting a lot of pushback for a tone-deaf tweet:

Nate Silver had a pretty good response:

The problem for Gillibrand is that she's positioned herself as a sensible moderate, but that is not what the Democrats are going to be looking for in 2020.

Imagine a future where a single tone-deaf tweet could keep a person from being POTUS. God, I hope we get there . . .

Hellbound · 17th December 2018, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Imagine a future where a single tone-deaf tweet could keep a person from being POTUS. God, I hope we get there . . .

Instead we have a world where a single tone-deaf tweet can stop you, but a hundred thousand or so guarantees success...

thaiboxerken · 31st December 2018, 07:08 AM

Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat into the race. Get ready for lots of lies about Warren claiming to be Chief of the Cherokee nation.

Firestone · 31st December 2018, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat into the race. Get ready for lots of lies about Warren claiming to be Chief of the Cherokee nation.

Indeed.

If this "Pocahontas" thing is the worst one can say about Warren, she must be a very good candidate.

I fully trust the US media to give this fake issue the same attention they give the numerous Trump scandals, because reasons ...

This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses).

Upchurch · 31st December 2018, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses).

Trump is president. The normal rules of how these things work is completely out the window.

Firestone · 31st December 2018, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Trump is president. The normal rules of how these things work is completely out the window.

The last Democratic primary with many candidates was in 1992.

Now, with up to 8 senators, a former vice-president, a few (former) governors or mayors, at least 2 (former) House members, and maybe the odd billionaire who could join the race, I wonder what normal rules would prescribe.

And yes, with Trump in the WH and as expected opponent, nothing will be anywhere "normal".

lobosrul5 · 31st December 2018, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Indeed.

If this "Pocahontas" thing is the worst one can say about Warren, she must be a very good candidate.

I fully trust the US media to give this fake issue the same attention they give the numerous Trump scandals, because reasons ...

This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses).

Please... please don't let her get the nom. Its all we'll hear for an entire year. If even 1% of swing voters are persuaded by that absolute nonsense in certain swing states it could mean Trump back in office for 4 years. And no, its absolutely not fair.

Top of the ticket should be the absolute best person to get swing voters and moderates. I'm not sure who that is, although every time I see Gillibrand interviewed I like her. Bottom of the ticket should be a progressive to get the left wing to get out and vote. Beto is probably the best candidate there.

Firestone · 31st December 2018, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Please... please don't let her get the nom. Its all we'll hear for an entire year. If even 1% of swing voters are persuaded by that absolute nonsense in certain swing states it could mean Trump back in office for 4 years. And no, its absolutely not fair.

Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee?

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Top of the ticket should be the absolute best person to get swing voters and moderates. I'm not sure who that is, although every time I see Gillibrand interviewed I like her. Bottom of the ticket should be a progressive to get the left wing to get out and vote. Beto is probably the best candidate there.

From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive.

At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar.

Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020?

lobosrul5 · 31st December 2018, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee?

From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive.

At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar.

Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020?

Hmm, that might just be possible. Is Cornyn less popular than Cruz (I think so)? Will a presidential election mean more Republicans going to the polls in Texas than in 2018, or mean more Democrats (probably the former). And also I do agree, Beto isn't super left wing really. Its more the picture that has been painted of him by the right. But I would've thought he's far enough to get the left wingers out to vote, maybe I'm wrong.

varwoche · 31st December 2018, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee?

Yes phony as can be. But, fair or not, it's worse when the candidate has ineptly played into the negative characterization.

I'm with lobosrul5. The situation is too dire and Warren is too high-risk.

JoeMorgue · 31st December 2018, 10:56 AM

Does this really even mean anything? She's just "throwing her hat in the ring" as it's been called. This seems like fishing for data on how much support she thinks she could get then anything else.

I mean this whole cycle where all the major moves and shakers from the major parties do the whole coy "Maybe I will run, maybe I won't" thing with reports for months and then way more then are ever going to have viable campaigns "Announce they are going to run" but start dropping out almost immediately when they don't get the positive feedback the were hoping for just strikes me as rather silly.

99% of the population is already 100% certain if they are going to vote for a Democrat or Republican and very little that can or will happen in the next year is going to change that and I'd bet good money the Dems are already like... mostly sure who they want to run and are basically just waiting for the right place in the campaign cycle to let their use base now who they are going to be voting for in November.

lobosrul5 · 31st December 2018, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Does this really even mean anything? She's just "throwing her hat in the ring" as it's been called. This seems like fishing for data on how much support she thinks she could get then anything else.

I mean this whole cycle where all the major moves and shakers from the major parties do the whole coy "Maybe I will run, maybe I won't" thing with reports for months and then way more then are ever going to have viable campaigns "Announce they are going to run" but start dropping out almost immediately when they don't get the positive feedback the were hoping for just strikes me as rather silly.

99% of the population is already 100% certain if they are going to vote for a Democrat or Republican and very little that can or will happen in the next year is going to change that and I'd bet good money the Dems are already like... mostly sure who they want to run and are basically just waiting for the right place in the campaign cycle to let their use base now who they are going to be voting for in November.

I don't think its that much. Probably more like 90% that right now are just absolutely not going to be persuaded to switch from R to D or vice versa. However, more importantly is the amount of people who might be convinced to get out and vote rather than being apathetic and just staying at home, or voting 3rd party instead of R/D.

ETA: of course, nationwide it doesn't really matter. It matters how many voters in Florida, Penn, Michigan, and Wisconsin can be persuaded one way or the other. Oh and Nevada and Arizona I guess too.

JoeMorgue · 31st December 2018, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

However, more importantly is the amount of people who might be convinced to get out and vote rather than being apathetic and just staying at home, or voting 3rd party instead of R/D.

Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020.

"Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism.

A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point.

lobosrul5 · 31st December 2018, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020.

"Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism.

A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point.

I'm having trouble parsing your first paragraph: are you saying proportionality fewer people will vote in 2020 than in 2016? I think the opposite will happen actually. More people in my circle of acquaintances talk about politics now than I can ever remember. That should translate to more people going to the polls.

The thing is there doesn't need to be a huge wave. The Dems lost by no more than about 1% in 4 states. All they need to do is take 3 of them and they win in 2020. Oh and they need to hold on to the ones they took but I can't see any states going from D to R in 2020 compared to 2016. We're talking tiny margins in the right places here, everything legitimate that can be done to ensure that happens needs to be done.

JoeMorgue · 31st December 2018, 03:39 PM

I'm saying if I'm the Dems I put the odds of pulling in "non-voters" at about the same as pulling in Republicans, not a lot. The idea that energy spent trying to pull in non-voters is any more or less wasted then energy pulling in Republicans doesn't ring true to me.

"But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections.

2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election.

5th December 2018, 01:40 PM	#281
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,358	Originally Posted by varwoche Point well made. A nitpick though -- I don't think Dukakis fits the model. Cuomo and Hart probably would have fit better, but Cuomo didn't run and Hart imploded in 1987 with the whole Donna Rice thing, withdrawing from the campaign and then trying to get back in at the last minute.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

5th December 2018, 07:56 PM	#283
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,597	Originally Posted by Brainster I don't think she got the nomination because it was her turn. I think that she got the nomination despite the fact that it was her turn. Certainly very few political observers thought going into the 2016 Democratic primaries that Hillary was going to have a difficult time of it against a 75-year-old democratic socialist. But she did get the nomination, and she was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. The Democrats just really seem to have something against going with the obvious candidate, and indeed if you look at their history, you can see why. 1956: Nominated Adlai Stevenson, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 1960: Nominated JFK, while Stevenson (who had been a sacrificial lamb in 1952 and 1956 against the overwhelmingly popular Eisenhower) was the man whose turn it was. Democrats won 1964: Sitting president nominated. 1968: Nominated Hubert Humphrey, candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 1972: Nominated George McGovern, while Ed Muskie was arguably the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 1976: Nominated Jimmy Carter. I don't know if there really was a candidate whose turn it was; you could argue Sarge Shriver (who had been McGovern's running mate in 1972). Democrats won. 1980: Sitting president nominated. 1984: Nominated Walter Mondale, whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 1988: Nominated Michael Dukakis, whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 1992: Nominated Bill Clinton. You could make an argument for Sam Nunn or Mario Cuomo as being whose turn it was, but neither of them ran. Democrats won. 1996: Sitting president nominated. 2000: Nominated Al Gore, whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 2004: Nominated John Kerry, whose turn it was. Democrats lost. 2008: Nominated Barack Obama, while Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate whose turn it was. Democrats won. 2012: Sitting president nominated. 2016: Nominated Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was. Democrats lost. It's a small sample, but it sure looks like when the Democrats go for the candidate whose turn it is (other than sitting presidents) they lose. I'm not sure I agree with your analysis...but good point.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

6th December 2018, 06:31 AM	#284
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,690	I'm not sure how "Hillary was run because it was 'her turn'" got turned into something that got made up. "Her Turn" was literally considered for her campaign slogan by her own campaign.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

6th December 2018, 10:00 AM	#286
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,690	Originally Posted by Imhotep I'm not sure I understand your point. Aren't campaign slogans "made up"? Isn't basically all politics outside of policy "made up"? That people seeing an.... entitlement (maybe not exactly the word, but close) angle to Hillary Clinton's campaign aren't just making it up out of whole cloth.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

6th December 2018, 10:17 AM	#287
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,369	A bit tangentally related to the topic... Some early estimates (based on 2018 mid-term results and Trump approval ratings) have the Democrats winning the 2020 election by ether 54 or 44 electoral votes (depending on how various factors are weighted). https://observer.com/2018/12/2020-tr...te-prediction/ Now, the article does point out that there are a lot of unknowns... potential 3rd party runs, primary challengers, etc. Plus its pretty early, so the results should be viewed with some skepticism.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

5th December 2018, 07:15 PM	#282
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,367	I don't know of a definition of this "turn" concept that could apply to anybody but Hillary. I've never seen anything else like the way the Hillary wing of the Democrats kept obsessively pushing and pushing her at us over & over & over since Bill was President. If there's anybody else who ever had a "turn", then an entirely different word is needed for the Hillary thing.

6th December 2018, 09:57 AM	#285
Imhotep Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2017 Location: Midwest USA Posts: 1,025	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I'm not sure how "Hillary was run because it was 'her turn'" got turned into something that got made up. "Her Turn" was literally considered for her campaign slogan by her own campaign. I'm not sure I understand your point. Aren't campaign slogans "made up"? Isn't basically all politics outside of policy "made up"?

6th December 2018, 10:18 AM	#288
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,690	And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

6th December 2018, 11:26 AM	#289
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,358	Deval Patrick says thanks, but no thanks: Quote: "After a lot of conversation, reflection and prayer, I've decided that a 2020 campaign for president is not for me. I've been overwhelmed by advice and encouragement from people from all over the country, known and unknown," Patrick said in a Facebook post. "But knowing that the cruelty of our elections process would ultimately splash back on people whom Diane and I love, but who hadn't signed up for the journey, was more than I could ask," he said. Patrick probably missed his window; he should have run in 2016.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

6th December 2018, 12:20 PM	#290
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,028	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump. Closer to 30%. The day before the election they gave Trump a 29% probability of winning. Just a few days before they had it as high as 35%. They were off, but not as far off as many people "remember" it to be. Polling ended up being pretty close for this (2018) election, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. ETA: Earlier in this other thread, that is.
	Last edited by crescent; 6th December 2018 at 12:29 PM.

6th December 2018, 12:36 PM	#291
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by crescent Quote: And 3 seconds before the moment he won Trump had... like a 20% chance to win and that was from the polls/sources that were widely criticized for being too bullish on Trump. Closer to 30%. The day before the election they gave Trump a 29% probability of winning. Just a few days before they had it as high as 35%. They were off, but not as far off as many people "remember" it to be. Polling ended up being pretty close for this (2018) election, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Yeah, and even at 20% (or 29%) chance of victory, its not too far fetched for someone to win. Its not like predicting a snowstorm in July... a 20% chance means that Trump would have won 1 out of 5 elections. Admittedly, I'm surprised at the fact that Trump won. And while part of that was due to polling predicting a Democratic victory, the biggest reason why I thought Trump would lose was because his campaign was what was called at the time a "dumpster fire", with accusations of racism, incompetence, etc.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

6th December 2018, 12:43 PM	#292
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,690	Again I get that Trump winning didn't... break the concept of polling or statistics. I'm just saying everything about Trump now is the same the same that was about Trump then and we got to take that into account. Trump, love him or hate him, is a man that the traditional rules have a hard time accounting for.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

6th December 2018, 09:30 PM	#293
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394	Originally Posted by Brainster Although the poll notes that Warren, Harris and Booker are polling in the low single digits, the fact is that they will have plenty of visibility over the next year, while it is hard to imagine Beto getting a lot of airtime. I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president.
Baylor Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394

7th December 2018, 12:04 AM	#294
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by Baylor I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president. I have this thing about preserving most ignoble postings for posterity. This, overall, is pretty damned disgusting.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

7th December 2018, 01:04 AM	#295
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,638	Originally Posted by Brainster Deval Patrick says thanks, but no thanks: Patrick probably missed his window; he should have run in 2016. It wasn’t his turn.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

7th December 2018, 01:09 AM	#296
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,638	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again I get that Trump winning didn't... break the concept of polling or statistics. I'm just saying everything about Trump now is the same the same that was about Trump then and we got to take that into account. Trump, love him or hate him, is a man that the traditional rules have a hard time accounting for. Absolutely. I am amazed that there are already people spouting the wisdom that Trump is bound to lose (not being said here, I will add), despite the fact there is not even a clear Democratic candidate.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

7th December 2018, 01:26 AM	#297
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,638	Originally Posted by Baylor I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president. I don’t even want to know which gutter you have been swilling this from.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

7th December 2018, 06:24 AM	#298
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,468	Originally Posted by angrysoba I don’t even want to know which gutter you have been swilling this from. I hear you. Ugly, bizarre, and big shock, brace yourself, false. Sometimes it's informative to know the source. A few minutes with google suggests this could be original work. When I ponder Baylor's outstanding qualities, I'll be sure not to think of him/her as a copy-paste phony.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

7th December 2018, 06:32 AM	#299
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,626	Originally Posted by Baylor I think those polls are over-representing white people and I think both those candidates would do well in the primaries. My guess is Spartacus will get the 2020 Democratic ticket and they're grooming that whore Harris for a '28-'32 run. She's a wet dream for the Democrats being a mystery meat ethnic woman. She's hoping to break the glass ceiling by being the first sex worker to be elected president. For gods' sake man, stop sugar coating it, tell us how you really feel.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

7th December 2018, 07:07 AM	#300
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day... Posts: 14,458	You know what? I'd vote an actual sex worker for President. I mean, they know how to get along with people, they can work through complicated situations, they have practice at exercising discretion... And contrary to most of our politicians, at least when they **** you, they'll do it well

15th December 2018, 11:57 PM	#301
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Biden is leading in Iowa. Some real negatives for Hillary in that poll.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles Last edited by LSSBB; 16th December 2018 at 12:07 AM.

16th December 2018, 07:46 AM	#302
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by LSSBB Biden is leading in Iowa. Some real negatives for Hillary in that poll. For context here are the results of the 12/2006 @DMRegister poll: John Edwards 36% Hillary Clinton 16% Barack Obama 13% Tom Vilsack 11% At this point it's basically a name recognition poll.

16th December 2018, 07:48 AM	#303
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,468	Originally Posted by varwoche My dream ticket, based almost entirely on perceived winnability. Policy specifics are so far down my priority list that I don't care and won't care, not until this existential threat to American democracy is in the rear view mirror. Gillibrand - O'Rourke The geezers need to step aside. Gillibrand was on Van Jones' program this weekend. I'm increasingly convinced she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. She sounds genuine in a way the other women contenders do not. She sounds like a person with convictions. She's confident. Her overall presentation is out of casting central. The Trump situation is so dire I don't even care that she flaunted her faith. Right now, that's a feature, not a bug.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 16th December 2018 at 07:49 AM.

16th December 2018, 08:24 AM	#304
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Stacko [indent] At this point it's basically a name recognition poll. That I don't deny. Campaigning hasn't begun yet in earnest.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

17th December 2018, 12:20 PM	#305
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,358	Originally Posted by varwoche Gillibrand was on Van Jones' program this weekend. I'm increasingly convinced she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. She sounds genuine in a way the other women contenders do not. She sounds like a person with convictions. She's confident. Her overall presentation is out of casting central. The Trump situation is so dire I don't even care that she flaunted her faith. Right now, that's a feature, not a bug. She's getting a lot of pushback for a tone-deaf tweet: Quote: Our future is: Female Intersectional Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started. Nate Silver had a pretty good response: Quote: I don't get how Gillibrand is trying to position herself. The type of people who respond positively to the term "intersectionality" are the type of people who will think she's a neo-liberal establishment shill and have 4 or 5 other candidates they like better. The problem for Gillibrand is that she's positioned herself as a sensible moderate, but that is not what the Democrats are going to be looking for in 2020.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

17th December 2018, 01:59 PM	#306
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 22,974	Originally Posted by Brainster She's getting a lot of pushback for a tone-deaf tweet: Nate Silver had a pretty good response: The problem for Gillibrand is that she's positioned herself as a sensible moderate, but that is not what the Democrats are going to be looking for in 2020. Imagine a future where a single tone-deaf tweet could keep a person from being POTUS. God, I hope we get there . . .
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

17th December 2018, 02:02 PM	#307
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day... Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Imagine a future where a single tone-deaf tweet could keep a person from being POTUS. God, I hope we get there . . . Instead we have a world where a single tone-deaf tweet can stop you, but a hundred thousand or so guarantees success...

31st December 2018, 07:08 AM	#308
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat into the race. Get ready for lots of lies about Warren claiming to be Chief of the Cherokee nation.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

31st December 2018, 07:23 AM	#309
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat into the race. Get ready for lots of lies about Warren claiming to be Chief of the Cherokee nation. Indeed. If this "Pocahontas" thing is the worst one can say about Warren, she must be a very good candidate. I fully trust the US media to give this fake issue the same attention they give the numerous Trump scandals, because reasons ... This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses).
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

31st December 2018, 07:37 AM	#310
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,468	Originally Posted by Firestone This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses). Trump is president. The normal rules of how these things work is completely out the window.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

31st December 2018, 07:56 AM	#311
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	Originally Posted by Upchurch Trump is president. The normal rules of how these things work is completely out the window. The last Democratic primary with many candidates was in 1992. Now, with up to 8 senators, a former vice-president, a few (former) governors or mayors, at least 2 (former) House members, and maybe the odd billionaire who could join the race, I wonder what normal rules would prescribe. And yes, with Trump in the WH and as expected opponent, nothing will be anywhere "normal".
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

31st December 2018, 09:12 AM	#312
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195	Originally Posted by Firestone Indeed. If this "Pocahontas" thing is the worst one can say about Warren, she must be a very good candidate. I fully trust the US media to give this fake issue the same attention they give the numerous Trump scandals, because reasons ... This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses). Please... please don't let her get the nom. Its all we'll hear for an entire year. If even 1% of swing voters are persuaded by that absolute nonsense in certain swing states it could mean Trump back in office for 4 years. And no, its absolutely not fair. Top of the ticket should be the absolute best person to get swing voters and moderates. I'm not sure who that is, although every time I see Gillibrand interviewed I like her. Bottom of the ticket should be a progressive to get the left wing to get out and vote. Beto is probably the best candidate there.
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195

31st December 2018, 09:38 AM	#313
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Please... please don't let her get the nom. Its all we'll hear for an entire year. If even 1% of swing voters are persuaded by that absolute nonsense in certain swing states it could mean Trump back in office for 4 years. And no, its absolutely not fair. Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee? Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Top of the ticket should be the absolute best person to get swing voters and moderates. I'm not sure who that is, although every time I see Gillibrand interviewed I like her. Bottom of the ticket should be a progressive to get the left wing to get out and vote. Beto is probably the best candidate there. From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive. At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar. Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020?
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

31st December 2018, 09:52 AM	#314
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195	Originally Posted by Firestone Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee? From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive. At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar. Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020? Hmm, that might just be possible. Is Cornyn less popular than Cruz (I think so)? Will a presidential election mean more Republicans going to the polls in Texas than in 2018, or mean more Democrats (probably the former). And also I do agree, Beto isn't super left wing really. Its more the picture that has been painted of him by the right. But I would've thought he's far enough to get the left wingers out to vote, maybe I'm wrong.
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195	Last edited by lobosrul5; 31st December 2018 at 09:56 AM.

31st December 2018, 10:52 AM	#315
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,468	Originally Posted by Firestone Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee? Yes phony as can be. But, fair or not, it's worse when the candidate has ineptly played into the negative characterization. I'm with lobosrul5. The situation is too dire and Warren is too high-risk.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.