View Poll Results: Will Bernie beat Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
Yes 71 33.18%
No 143 66.82%
Voters: 214. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:21 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suse View Post
Because Congress isn't going to pass it and the President doesn't get to create it out of thin air. I think it's possible that we may eventually end up with MFA but if we do, it's more likely to be successfully done in incremental steps. I want healthcare for all too, but I want to know that it will be successful before we throw out the current system.

<snip>

Another thing I would like to see eventually, but I'm also realistic. People who don't think college is a must aren't interested in paying for someone else (or someone else's kid) to go.
If not now when?

Really...when?

I am not irrational about this stuff. I get the opposition to these proposals is massive. I honestly cannot see them succeeding any time soon.

But when do we start working towards them? If you (general "you) always say it is impossible this year, and the next and the nest so don't bother trying then it is impossible forever.

We have had 30-40 years of "moderate" democrats and here we are in the mess we have today. They have done nothing to stop the rampant cost increases and done nothing to protect workers or wages. They will nod that something needs to be done about climate change but nothing happens there either. Same with infrastructure. They will all say we should do something but...nothing. Endless wars? Same thing.

When is it you think enough is enough? That something must improve in politics?

I am amazed that the people here want to let them have another bite at the apple. Why would you ever think a "moderate" like Bloomberg is what we really need? Is he better than Trump? Sure...but that is a mighty low bar. You would get more of what has gotten us here.

Change is needed. Continuing as we have been for decades is the real danger. I get people are afraid of change but embrace it because the mess we are in now is worse.

So, among the candidates today who is most likely to at least try to affect some change? (Hint: Sanders) Only Sanders has a solid, lifelong record championing these causes...even when he goes it alone. That is integrity.

Warren was close but then Warren, "I won't take superpac money" has taken superpac money. Buttigieg was for M4A untill he took lots of money from billionaires and now he is not for it and...dunno what he is on about really. "Not Bernie" is as close as I can figure.

Amy (never met a Trump judge I didn't like) Klobuchar...no chance, no thanks.

Joe Biden is Clinton re-warmed. Third-way politics to the core. His policies from a lifetime in politics are bad. Really bad.

Bloomberg...honestly I think if the republican party had let him run against Trump he would have run away with the whole thing. But he ain't no liberal (he used to be a republican) and people bitch that Sanders is an independent. Gimme a break.

So yeah, if you are a liberal, and believe in liberal values and want a better world for everyone and not just the 10% then Sanders is really your best choice.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-24-2020 at 11:25 PM.
  #102  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:25 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
After Bernie is subjected to a carpet-bombing GOP ad campaign as to his honeymoon in Soviet Moscow, his (democratic) socialism, his past praise of Castro and Ortega, insulting comments about the Democratic Party, and his plans to raise taxes and drastically cut military spending, I'm afraid that Trump will smugly - infuriatingly - be able to look forward to a second term.
I assure you that my generation, and the generations younger than myself that will be voting this year, don't think "socialism" is a four-letter word and couldn't give a flying fuck about party politics, where he went on honeymoon, or what he said 40 years ago about people who are now long dead.

It's going to be Millennials and Zoomers that decide this election, and we're far more concerned with climate change, wealth inequality, crushing debt, and endless wars than whether we have to cut funding for the Space Force so that our friends and families aren't dying because they can't afford insulin.

Last edited by Smapti; 02-25-2020 at 12:25 AM.
  #103  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:29 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
The problem isn’t the Republicans calling Bernie a socialist it’s Bernie calling Bernie a socialist. No one cares about the base. No one cares about anyone on either side that already knows who they are voting for. It’s how will it play with the 20% that everyone cares about. It’s about those thin slices of voters in the swing states.
This.

If Sanders gets the nomination the swing voters will finally look at his position site and actually pay attention to what he says and has said in the past. I wager 95% of them will shit bricks. HTF is he going to do any of all that without bankrupting the nation, YTF is most of it the governments business, and why would anyone vote for an agenda that basically can only get done at gun point? I've always loathed Trump but he's going to beat Sanders like a drum.
  #104  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:02 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Sanders has issued some fairly detailed plans for paying for his proposals. I have no opinion on whether these plans are realistic, and am not qualified to make that judgment anyway; and I suspect this website is brand spanking new (I looked for such a page literally yesterday and couldn't find it, but it was the first Google result this morning). He may even have released it just in time for the debate tonight.

But it's no longer accurate to say he doesn't have any details on how he's gonna pay for everything.
  #105  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:11 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
I’m curious, has anyone ever won the presidency while promising to raise taxes a metric fuckton? Yes I know, he’s promising to raise taxes on “them” and not “us.” But still he’s not shy in saying how much he is going to raise taxes.
  #106  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Damn! Details! Details are bad, at least during the primary (and probably during the general too). At least these details are still pretty damn simple, mostly summed up in a single short sentence. But I kind of wish he had held back the details.
  #107  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:46 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
only way Sanders wins is a really big turnout of under 30 voters. That is very unlikely to happen based on the past few presidential elections. But maybe he is the guy to finally get young people to vote .
  #108  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:49 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Damn! Details! Details are bad, at least during the primary (and probably during the general too). At least these details are still pretty damn simple, mostly summed up in a single short sentence. But I kind of wish he had held back the details.
You are spectacularly wrong and I do enjoy catching you at being spectacularly wrong.

I make no secret of not being a huge Bernie fan, but seeing him make an honest attempt at explaining how he intends to pay for his policies makes him a much more honest and decent pol to my mind and his stock just rose immensely to me, and I hope many others who appreciate a level of honesty in politics. And I say that as someone whose taxes have been significantly reduced under Trump and are going to go up significantly under Bernie's plan.

Now, can he get this done legislatively (if he wins it all), probably not. But for the first time since this shit show election cycle has begun, I'd really like to see him given an opportunity to give it his best shot.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #109  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I assure you that my generation, and the generations younger than myself that will be voting this year, ....
Gambling is no longer allowed at SDMB. Otherwise I'd offer to bet that Didnt.Bother.To.Vote wins in a landslide among "Zoomers" in November.
  #110  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:58 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You are spectacularly wrong and I do enjoy catching you at being spectacularly wrong.

I make no secret of not being a huge Bernie fan, but seeing him make an honest attempt at explaining how he intends to pay for his policies makes him a much more honest and decent pol to my mind and his stock just rose immensely to me, and I hope many others who appreciate a level of honesty in politics. And I say that as someone whose taxes have been significantly reduced under Trump and are going to go up significantly under Bernie's plan.

Now, can he get this done legislatively (if he wins it all), probably not. But for the first time since this shit show election cycle has begun, I'd really like to see him given an opportunity to give it his best shot.
I hope I'm wrong on this, because I want to see Bernie win! May my wrongness always be in ways that coincide with greater chances of success for progressive politicians!

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-25-2020 at 07:58 AM.
  #111  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:59 AM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,272
Will he? Can he? I honestly could not predict it at this point. 2016 blew away predictability.

One thing I'll grant Whack~ and others is, maybe if with the socialist outsider in the mix, the Dems finally end four decades of running away from the word and concept "Liberal", and &^%$ own it, and say, hell yes, we want a better place to live by a metric other than the S&P Index, that would be helpful.

People in farms and deindustrialized cities where Trump's policies are hurting them, are sticking with him because they feel it's worth the pain to get whatever illusion he sold them. Maybe, just, maybe, there could be enough other people who will feel it's worth it paying more taxes or collecting less in their stock fund dividend to improve health and education? Can't find out if we are too scared to even propose it seriously because we're still too traumatized by 72, 80, and 84.

And if you conclude it's flat out impossible to win as a Liberal, never mind outright Leftist, and all you can hope for is to propose regaining a semblance of civility in administration, then invade the Republican Party and moderate it.
  #112  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:11 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You are spectacularly wrong and I do enjoy catching you at being spectacularly wrong.

I make no secret of not being a huge Bernie fan, but seeing him make an honest attempt at explaining how he intends to pay for his policies makes him a much more honest and decent pol to my mind and his stock just rose immensely to me, and I hope many others who appreciate a level of honesty in politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I hope I'm wrong on this, because I want to see Bernie win! May my wrongness always be in ways that coincide with greater chances of success for progressive politicians!
I agree with both of these posts. I personally am not in favor of some of Bernie's specific proposals, but I respect him immensely for putting them forward and believe this is something politicians should aspire to. But my personal respect doesn't mean anything in the general election.

Last edited by Ludovic; 02-25-2020 at 08:11 AM.
  #113  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
I also don't favor "how do we pay for it?" as an assumed "good question", because I think it assumes right wing conventional wisdom as true (i.e. that all spending must necessarily be paid for by taxes). Deficit spending can be fine, and obviously the last few decades have proven that the public doesn't care much about deficit spending.
  #114  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:33 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,855
His comments on the Cuban revolution mean that he's not going to win Florida. The billionaires will mobilize to destroy him and wen the Republicans are done with him, he will be the second coming of Fidel Castro. I think that Trump will add to the states he won in 2016.
  #115  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...05263987683328

Nate Silver on electability:

"I don't think "which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump" is literally an unknowable question. But there are questions where the uncertainty can be well-quantified and others where it can't, and that one's in the latter group. If you saw big polling differences vs. Trump among the Democrats, or at least among the high-name recognition Democrats, that's a case where the uncertainty, though great, starts to become semi-modelable. But for the time being, you don't see those differences."

I don't think there's any reason to treat anyone's opinion on who is more electable as better than a guess right now. There are logical-sounding arguments that can be made in favor of electability for all of the candidates, but there's no way to know right now which of those arguments are better.
  #116  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:51 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

I don't think there's any reason to treat anyone's opinion on who is more electable as better than a guess right now. There are logical-sounding arguments that can be made in favor of electability for all of the candidates, but there's no way to know right now which of those arguments are better.
Is anyone claiming that they are doing anything but guessing at this point? I didn’t think Trump was going to be elected. My guess was wrong. The day after the election I thought there was no way the next election was even going to be competitive. Trump was going to lose spectacularly. The democrats are proving me wrong. I can only guess who is going to win but it’s certainly been competitive.
  #117  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Is anyone claiming that they are doing anything but guessing at this point? I didn’t think Trump was going to be elected. My guess was wrong. The day after the election I thought there was no way the next election was even going to be competitive. Trump was going to lose spectacularly. The democrats are proving me wrong. I can only guess who is going to win but it’s certainly been competitive.
Lots of folks have pushed back on this notion when I've called their predictions "guesses". I'm still surprised smart people have any confidence in their own predictive abilities after 2016. I certainly don't. I have hopes, and feelings, but no confidence at all that I have an idea of what will happen in the general election.
  #118  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:19 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,404
I have no idea. After Trump's election I naturally assume that Americans are crazy who love crazy. It's just a different world over there.
  #119  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:42 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
His comments on the Cuban revolution mean that he's not going to win Florida. The billionaires will mobilize to destroy him and wen the Republicans are done with him, he will be the second coming of Fidel Castro. I think that Trump will add to the states he won in 2016.
:Sigh:

I checked what Bernie said, he clearly did condemn all authoritarians and Castro too, he just did the sin of pointing that educating the Cuban people was still a good thing to do, what the media did there is omit the context and get all others to react just to the "Hitler ate sugar" fallacy.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-25-2020 at 09:43 AM.
  #120  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:51 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...05263987683328

Nate Silver on electability:

"I don't think "which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump" is literally an unknowable question. But there are questions where the uncertainty can be well-quantified and others where it can't, and that one's in the latter group. If you saw big polling differences vs. Trump among the Democrats, or at least among the high-name recognition Democrats, that's a case where the uncertainty, though great, starts to become semi-modelable. But for the time being, you don't see those differences."
I don't think it matters who the Democrats nominate. This election is going to be about the incumbent.

Emotions are high on the Democratic side because of the stakes involved. Everyone has their favorites and it's good to get it all out in the open. The diversity of opinions and hearing that diversity are strengths. That emotion is going to continue to the general election no matter who gets the nomination, because the great unifier to still going to be unifying the opposition.
  #121  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:53 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,973
Two issues that Warren wasn't shy about, which might still tick off moderates if Bernie takes them up, are the issue of student-debt-forgiveness and racial reparations.
  #122  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:58 AM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
I have no idea. After Trump's election I naturally assume that Americans are crazy who love crazy. It's just a different world over there.
I didn't lose confidence in the American voter after Trump was elected. I understand why somebody might have fallen for Trump's con. I've continually lost confidence in the American voter as Trump's approval rating hasn't really dropped below 40%. It should be near zero. Sadly, I think there's a fair number of Trump supporters that want fascism (there's at least one on this board). They see Trump as the saviour from the evil of liberalism that will destroy the country. Then you have the Republican tribalists, that simply cannot separate Trump from Republican, and recognize that you can support Republican policies while recognizing that not everything Trump says and does is a good thing. You can oppose Trump, and support Republican policies, and in fact, the best way to do that is to vote against Trump in the upcoming election (while presumably Republican down-ticket, unless a down-ticket candidate is a Trumpist. Republicans voters are the ones with the power to save American democracy.). But look at this board, some of the Republican posters are arguing that the DoJ and FBI should no longer have their traditional independent role, but rather should be the personal extension of the power of the president. Any why? Certainly, they're smart enough to recognize the danger of that (and would be very opposed if the president was a Democrat), but because Trump said so, and Trump is Republican, therefore they have to support it. So, basically, there's an alliance between tradtional conservatives, the religious right, and fascists, all voting in lockstep for political power. But don't worry, I'm pretty sure that's never happened in history before and turned out badly.
  #123  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:21 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I also don't favor "how do we pay for it?" as an assumed "good question", because I think it assumes right wing conventional wisdom as true (i.e. that all spending must necessarily be paid for by taxes). Deficit spending can be fine, and obviously the last few decades have proven that the public doesn't care much about deficit spending.
So you don't want Bernie to be up front about how much he will increase the deficit, because people don't care about the deficit, and might not vote for him if they find out he is going to increase it.

And "eventually we have to pay for it" is something we shouldn't assume. Bernie should just keep quiet about specifics and promise freebies, and leave it to later to figure out how to pick up the pieces.

"First, elect a socialist, and we will worry about the consequences later."

Oooookay then. I believe a good deal of Bernie's support comes from people under 30. One wonders how they will react when they grow up, get jobs, and realize that they are going to have to pay for it. With interest.

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So you don't want Bernie to be up front about how much he will increase the deficit, because people don't care about the deficit, and might not vote for him if they find out he is going to increase it.

And "eventually we have to pay for it" is something we shouldn't assume. Bernie should just keep quiet about specifics and promise freebies, and leave it to later to figure out how to pick up the pieces.

"First, elect a socialist, and we will worry about the consequences later."

Oooookay then. I believe a good deal of Bernie's support comes from people under 30. One wonders how they will react when they grow up, get jobs, and realize that they are going to have to pay for it. With interest.

Regards,
Shodan
I want Bernie to win, and thus I'm advocating political messaging strategies that I think will help him win (and I could well be wrong -- all of this is just guessing, just like the assumptions and preferred strategies of the other sides). This has nothing to do with actual policy positions.
  #125  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:27 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
This is it in a nutshell. The election will not be fair. It will be rigged, skewed, dishonest, fucked up. The results will not reflect the desires of voters. Just like the last one didn't. Only it will be even worse this time.
I am not so sure of this. I think that any attempt to rig the election that actually succeeds will be by definition so obvious and egregious that Trump and Co. could never get away with it. IOW, its ability to succeed would be its downfall. I hope.
  #126  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:38 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
While I would not put all my stock in a single poll or theory, this article from Salon illustrates how Bernie could win, according to a theory by Rachel Bitecofer (she predicted a 42 seat Dem pickup in 2018, actual number 41):

Quote:
...Bitecofer says the candidate isn't nearly as important as voter turnout and the strength of "negative partisanship." Simply put, national elections aren't decided by issues, legislative records or many of the old school measures of electoral success...Turnout and the will to inflict pain on the enemy at the ballot box is how elections are decided now.
This will be how any Democratic nominee can win. And there is no group more angry and vocal about the need to throw Trump out than Sanders supporters.
  #127  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:39 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,269
Bernie/Harris or Bernie/Abrams seems like a very strong ticket, no? Hopefully if he is the nominee he will be smart about his choice of running mate.
  #128  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:40 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
If I had to guess a running mate, I'd guess Stacey Abrams.
  #129  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:51 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,391
Here's the problem with Sanders- I read an article that basically summed up what I've been trying to say in this and other threads very succinctly.

Nominating Sanders will make the election basically a referendum on socialist/far left wing politics, instead of making it a referendum on what a corrupt, crooked asshole Trump is. That's the LAST thing the Democratic party wants to do at this point- they need to stay on message about beating Trump and getting him out of office. Nominating Sanders brings all the focus off of Trump and on to Sanders' policies, and IMO, those aren't the kind of thing that's going to win an election in this day and age.
  #130  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:53 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,617
What was 2016 a referendum on?
  #131  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:54 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Here's the problem with Sanders- I read an article that basically summed up what I've been trying to say in this and other threads very succinctly.

Nominating Sanders will make the election basically a referendum on socialist/far left wing politics, instead of making it a referendum on what a corrupt, crooked asshole Trump is. That's the LAST thing the Democratic party wants to do at this point- they need to stay on message about beating Trump and getting him out of office. Nominating Sanders brings all the focus off of Trump and on to Sanders' policies, and IMO, those aren't the kind of thing that's going to win an election in this day and age.
So you just want to redo Hillary 2016 again. Just talk about how awful Trump is 24/7 without offering anything to inspire people to actually vote *for* our candidate? Worked so well last time...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #132  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
While I would not put all my stock in a single poll or theory, this article from Salon illustrates how Bernie could win, according to a theory by Rachel Bitecofer (she predicted a 42 seat Dem pickup in 2018, actual number 41):



This will be how any Democratic nominee can win. And there is no group more angry and vocal about the need to throw Trump out than Sanders supporters.
And here is what Bitecofer herself said last June:
Quote:
“The big takeaway from this data is that Biden is clearly more electable than Sanders,” Rachel Bitecofer, assistant director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, said in an interview last week, adding that it bolstered “the perception that this election is the Democrats’ to lose unless they nominate Sanders.”
https://morningconsult.com/2019/06/2...has-a-problem/
  #133  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:07 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Here's the problem with Sanders- I read an article that basically summed up what I've been trying to say in this and other threads very succinctly.

Nominating Sanders will make the election basically a referendum on socialist/far left wing politics, instead of making it a referendum on what a corrupt, crooked asshole Trump is. That's the LAST thing the Democratic party wants to do at this point- they need to stay on message about beating Trump and getting him out of office. Nominating Sanders brings all the focus off of Trump and on to Sanders' policies, and IMO, those aren't the kind of thing that's going to win an election in this day and age.
I think that's the 2016 strategy. Maybe the 2004 strategy too. I don't think it's a good strategy.
  #134  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:13 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If not now when?
...
Really...when?
...
When is it you think enough is enough?
I am all for universal health care in the U.S. And I understand the frustration of you and others (and even myself) that is hasn't happened, and we don't seem much closer since the ACA was passed. And like you imply, enough is indeed enough. However, the goal is to get the health care as soon as possible. You ask "who is the most likely to affect some change"? I disagree with your answer. It is not, and cannot be, Bernie at this stage when so many people in this country like their private care and are able to afford it, or get it through their jobs. And even assuming the best case scenario, that Bernie wins and the Dems take the Senate while keeping the House, Bernie will not have political cover to essentially stuff public health care down everyone's throats. Without making this about Buttigieg, it is going to take some combination of private and public care such as he proposes. If this theoretical candidate can get elected, and institute major, but partial, public care* such that it works and is widely seen to be cheaper overall, people WILL come over to it. I wish it were possible to just get it done pretty much immediately with a Bernie win, but I don't see how it its. At least that's how I see it.

*Even if this means just extending the ACA to more people over time...
  #135  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think that's the 2016 strategy. Maybe the 2004 strategy too. I don't think it's a good strategy.
2016, the strategy was aimed too much at how horrible Trump was as a person. For 2020, you can actually campaign on horrible stuff he's actually done as president. That seems Bloomberg's thinking and I hope it's adopted by whoever wins. Quite trying to convince people Trump is a son of a bitch and start convincing them he's not "our son of a bitch".

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-25-2020 at 11:16 AM.
  #136  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:16 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Lots of folks have pushed back on this notion when I've called their predictions "guesses". I'm still surprised smart people have any confidence in their own predictive abilities after 2016. I certainly don't. I have hopes, and feelings, but no confidence at all that I have an idea of what will happen in the general election.
What's annoying us is that we're basing our predictions on evidence and yours seem to be based on your gut feelings - and you seem to think the two methods are equivalently good.

I used to have a co-worker who was a regular smoker. Somebody once asked her if she worried about the health problems caused by smoking. She said "Some people believe that smoking causes cancer and other people don't. I'm one of the ones who don't believe it."

She apparently didn't grasp that people who "believed" that smoking causes cancer were not just making their belief up; they had arrived at that belief by looking at the connection between people who smoked and people who got cancer. True, not everyone who gets cancer is a smoker and not everyone who smokes ends up getting cancer. But the connection between smoking and cancer is not just a guess.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 02-25-2020 at 11:16 AM.
  #137  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:21 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...when they grow up, get jobs, and realize that they are going to have to pay for it. With interest....
Bath, haircut, job. Ah, the classics never change!
  #138  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
What's annoying us is that we're basing our predictions on evidence and yours seem to be based on your gut feelings - and you seem to think the two methods are equivalently good.
I don't believe your predictions are based on evidence -- rather, it's gut feeling disguised as evidence. There is no useful evidence for which candidate would be best in the general election this early, per Nate Silver. Maybe you disagree with Silver, and that's fine, but so far you've utterly failed to convince me that you're right and Silver's wrong.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-25-2020 at 11:23 AM.
  #139  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:30 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And here is what Bitecofer herself said last June:

https://morningconsult.com/2019/06/2...has-a-problem/
Thanks, and keeping in mind it was last June, here are a few quotes from from Politico earlier this month:

Quote:
Bitecofer has already released her 2020 model, and is alone among election forecasters in giving the Democrats—who, of course, do not yet have a nominee—the 270 electoral votes required to claim the presidency without a single toss-up state flipping their way. She sees anyone in the top tier, or even the second tier of candidates, as strong enough to win back most of the Trump states in the industrial Midwest, stealing a march in the South in places like North Carolina and Florida, and even competing in traditional red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona. The Democrats are likely to pick up seats again in the House, she says, pegging the total at nine pickups in Texas alone, and have a decent chance of taking back the Senate.
So again, and making it clear that I would never put all of my eggs in Bitecofer's basket, what she suggests about the way people vote makes sense to me, and is one I've long thought might be true. That is, people don't sit around their kitchen tables with a list of candidates, with Pro and Con columns and a scale of 1 to 10 ranking, and use it to figure out who they will vote for.

Bitecofer again:

Quote:
“The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.”

“And it is just not true.”
  #140  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:31 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,530
Personally I expect the election to be filled with skulduggery and shenanigans from the Republicans and their overseas friends to the point that the public lose confidence in the democratic process, Trump declares victory and the country continues its slide to the dark side.

But you never know.
  #141  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:35 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
@Fiddle Peghead:
She went out of her way to except Sanders from that prediction back in June. The article you posted didn't address that, despite it linking to the very article I just did. Hinky.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-25-2020 at 11:38 AM.
  #142  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
@Fiddle Peghead:
She went out of her way to except Sanders from that prediction back in June. The article you posted didn't address that, despite it linking to the very article I just did. Hinky.
By my reading of the Feb article, Bitecofer believes that Sanders is just as likely to win as the other Democrats.
  #143  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:40 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Personally I expect the election to be filled with skulduggery and shenanigans from the Republicans and their overseas friends to the point that the public lose confidence in the democratic process, Trump declares victory and the country continues its slide to the dark side.

But you never know.
Not true. Eventually, everybody knows. Alas, it's too late.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #144  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
By my reading of the Feb article, Bitecofer believes that Sanders is just as likely to win as the other Democrats.
That's obviously the point the article was trying to make. But it doesn't include a retraction of her June/19 position. Why?
  #145  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's obviously the point the article was trying to make. But it doesn't include a retraction of her June/19 position. Why?
I don't know, but I don't think that's particularly notable -- back then, she thinks the data suggested X -- several months later, apparently she believes the data suggested Y.

I'll note (in case anyone forgets) that I lean towards Nate Silver's uncertainty re: electability arguments right now.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-25-2020 at 11:45 AM.
  #146  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:51 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Yeah, "apparently" her mind changed. Or maybe he author of the article took the top line of her theory without going any deeper. You really think she would just quietly erase that "anyone except Sanders" caveat without comment? You would accept quietly dropping that caveat without explanation?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-25-2020 at 11:52 AM.
  #147  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, "apparently" her mind changed. Or maybe he author of the article took the top line of her theory without going any deeper. You really think she would just quietly erase that "anyone except Sanders" caveat without comment? You would accept quietly dropping that caveat without explanation?
I don't know -- maybe she's embarassed about her earlier prediction and wanted to pretend it didn't exist. Who knows? Maybe email the author and ask them specifically about this.
  #148  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:55 AM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
"The best way for Trump to win is through defeatism metastasizing into an actual defeat. Defeatism leads to reduced energy which will lead to a second Trump term."

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/25/can...n-support-him/

Last edited by drad dog; 02-25-2020 at 11:56 AM.
  #149  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:10 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
@Fiddle Peghead:
She went out of her way to except Sanders from that prediction back in June. The article you posted didn't address that, despite it linking to the very article I just did. Hinky.
Okay, but my point is that a lot has changed since June. And for me, it's also more about how people decide to vote, and I think Bitecofer nails it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, "apparently" her mind changed. Or maybe he author of the article took the top line of her theory without going any deeper. You really think she would just quietly erase that "anyone except Sanders" caveat without comment? You would accept quietly dropping that caveat without explanation?
As for this, I really don't like to guess about this type of thing. I have no idea why that was erased.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-25-2020 at 12:14 PM.
  #150  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:34 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
The problem isn’t the Republicans calling Bernie a socialist it’s Bernie calling Bernie a socialist. No one cares about the base. No one cares about anyone on either side that already knows who they are voting for. It’s how will it play with the 20% that everyone cares about. It’s about those thin slices of voters in the swing states.
I have yet to see any evidence that the mythical swing voter even exists, much less that there are a lot waiting to be swayed by the 'socialist' boogeyman. Asserting that the Republicans will shout 'socialist' louder than they did before and that it will alienate people is just assertion, not fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
When some people can't tell the difference between a man...
They're both authoritarian, racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, warmongering billionaires; Bloomberg is Trump running with blue MAGA hats, however much some people want to pretend otherwise, or claim that people who point it out are 'delusional'. You're simply not a a 'progressive' when you state that you're going to vote for a candidate who opposes unions, lauds the flavor of 'Democracy' practiced in Singapore and China, calls trans women 'men in dresses' and 'it', heartily endorsed 'Stop and Frisk' until he decided to run, actively funded multiple republican candidates up until he contemplated running in 2018, endorsed the Iraq war and doesn't regret doing so, arrested protestors at the RNC and held them in violation of state law, and who instigated many instances of sexual harassment then buried them using cash and NDAs.

The idea that anyone who supports all of the above in a presidential candidate is at all 'progressive' can only work if someone redefines 'progressive' into something like 'not currently a republican'. Again, the 'majority opinion' on this board is clearly not progressive by any ordinary meaning of the term.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017