Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1151  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
My bookmarks are a joke, my memory even worse. One reason I post at SDMB is because my own posts, e.g. this one become a memory cache for me! That links to a link where "Stephens-Davidowitz has concluded that Obama lost between 3 and 5 percentage points [net national average] of the popular vote to racism."

The trivial alternate-every-8-years rule has miscalled only two elections in the past 70 years: 1980 and 1988. 2008 was the D's turn. 2016 and 2020 are the R's turn. No, it's not a certainty and Trump is so horrid he should be thrown out of office. But, unlike 2008, this election is no "gimme" for the D's.
  #1152  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:47 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
VPs don't have to be well known. THey have to be reassuring. A splashy pick would be a bad idea if the nominee is old. There are no young Democrats who are ready to be President due to the devastation the party experienced over the last 8 years.
That makes me wonder... if he hadn't gotten into trouble, would the nomination be Al Franken's to lose right now?


ETA: For a chance to see Trump have to face Franken in a debate I'd even pay the admission to the voting precinct in my neighborhood.

...what... you guys don't have to pay???

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 05-17-2019 at 04:50 AM.
  #1153  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
I did think Franken would be a very interesting foil for Trump, before it all came crashing down. (And if you think he should not have resigned, you can apportion a fraction of the blame to me, as I was one of his constituents and used the official contact form on his Senate page, that can only be accessed if your IP address shows up within the borders of Minnesota, to urge him to step down.)

But I don't think he'd be beating Biden right now if he were in the race. I just think that as boring as it may be, Josh Marshall is right: Democratic voters think Biden is the most electable, and as long as that remains the case he is unbeatable in the primaries.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1154  
Old 05-22-2019, 02:38 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
The following information, from a Nation op-ed, is new to me but no surprise to me--although it apparently took me a few weeks longer than others to learn about it. It should be the end of any serious person's belief that it makes any sense to nominate Bernie Sanders as Democratic standardbearer in the crucial effort to turn Donald Trump out of office. I know that this kind of candidate represents many of my friends and family better than any others running. But I'm sorry: an avatar of these kinds of old Trotskyite lefties cannot win a presidential general election.

https://www.thenation.com/article/be...eric-alterman/
Quote:
Sanders today insists on calling himself a “socialist,” but he no longer holds most of the positions historically associated with socialism. He should know this because he was a serious socialist between 1972 and 1976, when he ran and lost in four statewide Vermont races on the Liberty Union Party line. His platform called for the nationalization of pretty much every industry in America, together with a 100 percent income tax on America’s top earners. And Sanders was still a socialist in 1980, when he served as an elector for the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, which favored the abolition of the US military budget and proclaimed itself in solidarity with both Cuba and Iran at a time when the latter held over 52 Americans hostage.

I held some of the same views myself as a young man, but I am not running for president. And if I ever thought I might, I probably wouldn’t have agreed to attend a rally in 1985 in Managua, Nicaragua, with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,” while the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega, condemned my country’s “state terrorism” (accurate as the term was).

I mention this appearance because, according to reporting by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, Republicans have it and similar events on tape. They also have binders full of statements made in support of the kind of socialism that Sanders backed before he became what he is today: a typical New Deal–style liberal or European social democrat. Much of Sanders’s agenda is popular, but calling yourself a “socialist” is, according to recent polls, a losing proposition—74 percent of independent voters disapprove of it, with just 9 percent approving.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1155  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:33 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The following information, from a Nation op-ed, is new to me but no surprise to me--although it apparently took me a few weeks longer than others to learn about it. It should be the end of any serious person's belief that it makes any sense to nominate Bernie Sanders as Democratic standardbearer in the crucial effort to turn Donald Trump out of office. I know that this kind of candidate represents many of my friends and family better than any others running. But I'm sorry: an avatar of these kinds of old Trotskyite lefties cannot win a presidential general election.

https://www.thenation.com/article/be...eric-alterman/
Yes, I have said this repeatedly "Republicans have it and similar events on tape. They also have binders full of statements made in support of the kind of socialism that Sanders backed before he became what he is today:...". The GOP and the Kremlin actually aided Sanders campaign in order to hurt Hillary. If Sanders was the actual candidate they'd smear him so badly he might not even win his home state.
  #1156  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:39 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Sanders might get beaten so badly by Trump they will need dental records to identify his body.
  #1157  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:50 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Do we have a Ways to Improve Political Polls thread? We do need such a thread but I couldn't find it so I'll post a query here:

When a pollee answers "Sanders" to "Whom do you support for the Democratic nomination?" why not ask a follow-up question like "Would you change your mind if you saw hard evidence that Sanders was once a hard-core Marxist?" (Maybe show the pollee a video.)

The Putin-GOP alliance knows that Sanders would be easy to defeat in November; they have trouble suppressing their mirth at seeing Dems who don't even realize this. Similarly, FoxNews' respectful treatment of Buttigieg was not a lurch away from evil: they're happy to build up any candidate who would be easy to defeat in November.
  #1158  
Old 05-22-2019, 02:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
Yes, SlackerInc, the states are correlated. But that doesn't mean that a candidate who does well in California will do well in Wyoming. Some are more correlated than others, and some, in some regards, are anti-correlated.

Just to do some of your work for you, part of O'Rourke's performance was due to doing well with Hispanic voters. So he might also be expected to do well in other states with large Hispanic populations. But that won't help him in states with low Hispanic populations, and a lot of states with high Hispanic populations, it won't matter, because they're already in the bag for one party or the other. So maybe he'd be able to flip Arizona, say? A possibility, for which the follow-up would be to examine polls of Arizona, to see how he fares there. And of course, then you also have to ask how important it is to be able to flip Arizona.


I Love Me, Vol. I, I think it's safe to say that, if it weren't for the groping thing, Franken would probably be at the least a strong contender right now. He was a popular Senator from a swingy Midwestern state, and a comedian is exactly the right sort of person to play off against Trump.
  #1159  
Old 05-22-2019, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Y...

Just to do some of your work for you, part of O'Rourke's performance was due to doing well with Hispanic voters. So he might also be expected to do well in other states with large Hispanic populations. But that won't help him in states with low Hispanic populations, and a lot of states with high Hispanic populations, it won't matter, because they're already in the bag for one party or the other. So maybe he'd be able to flip Arizona, say? A possibility, for which the follow-up would be to examine polls of Arizona, to see how he fares there. And of course, then you also have to ask how important it is to be able to flip Arizona....
The nice thing about Beto is that Texas would be in play. Sure it would be likely Red, but Trump would have to spend $ and time there. And his wall is pissing off quite a few Texans.
  #1160  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
What makes you think that O'Rourke would fare better against Trump than he did against Cruz? He could probably make it closer than any other Democrat could, but getting close in Texas is worth 0 electoral votes.
  #1161  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
Getting close in Texas makes Trump spend time and resources there that could otherwise be devoted to the Rust Belt. There is value in that. Even if Trump can lock it down with those appearances and resources, he'd rather be able to ignore it like he can Alabama or Indiana.

LOL, Bijou and DrDeth: I think Bernie as nominee would be bad, but maybe not quite that bad. I think he could have a chance to win, even, because Trump is so bad. But it's certainly not a risk we ought to take.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Just to do some of your work for you, part of O'Rourke's performance was due to doing well with Hispanic voters. So he might also be expected to do well in other states with large Hispanic populations. But that won't help him in states with low Hispanic populations

Cite? Nate Silver said on the 538 podcast that Beto actually didn't get a huge boost from Hispanic voters compared to other Democrats, which means his strong showing in Texas was due to other voters splitting tickets.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-22-2019 at 07:31 PM.
  #1162  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
I haven't seen any serious analysis that Texas is "in play" within the next couple of elections. Yes, Beto came close against Cruz and Dems made some progress under a blue wave but it's still an R+8 state.
  #1163  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:53 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
And Michigan went for Obama by ten points in 2012.

A state like Texas has a chance to go Democratic in 2020 if

--the Democratic nominee is a Texan

--the Republican nominee is unpopular

--the Republican nominee considers Texas a lock and ignores it

Trump can only control the last of those third bullet points. That's why I say nominating Beto would make him have to spend time and resources there to hold it. That's not the same as saying that even if Trump contests it, Beto could still beat him. But making Trump spend the time and resources is itself a tactical win.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1164  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I haven't seen any serious analysis that Texas is "in play" within the next couple of elections. Yes, Beto came close against Cruz and Dems made some progress under a blue wave but it's still an R+8 state.
I dunno about a serious chance, but as SlackerInc & I said, it will be close enough that Trump can't skip it.
https://qz.com/1562532/beto-orourke-...2020-election/
Polls show he has a pretty good chance of beating Donald Trump, at least in his home state, where he’s polling one percentage point behind the president, according to a new Quinnipiac survey.

1%?!? that's within the margin of error.

Such close odds in deeply Republican Texas vouch for the excitement O’Rourke generated during his campaign against senator Ted Cruz last year. They’re also a sign of Trump’s sagging popularity. Even self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders would give Trump a run for his money in the Lone Star state, based on the poll, which was conducted last month.

If the election were today: % for Democrat % for Trump
Beto O’Rourke 46 47
Joe Biden 46 47
Bernie Sanders 45 47


Nice that even Biden or Sanders could make it a race in Texas. Of course that's pre-GOP/Kremlin Bernie smear, but still.
  #1165  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:27 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Texas will go Democratic, or come close to it, only in the event of a decisive Democratic win.

Trump won Texas by 9%, while Clinton won the popular vote by 2%. So to get an EC-proof majority in the Electoral College, the Democrats need to do just a tiny bit better nationally. Even if we assume that Texas is moving leftwards faster than the rest of the country and that Beto is uniquely appealing to Texans, it seems highly unlikely that Dems would win Texas without winning the national popular vote by like 7 percent; if Texas isn't in fact any more vulnerable than last time, they would need to win by 10 percent.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 05-23-2019 at 02:28 PM.
  #1166  
Old 05-23-2019, 05:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
The numbers you cite make it appear unlikely to become a tipping point state. But wouldn't you have said the same about Michigan and Wisconsin in 2015, based on the numbers up to that point? And neither of those Rust Belt states are changing demographically as rapidly as TX.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #1167  
Old 05-24-2019, 10:02 AM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Here are the differences between the Democratic vote in those states compared to the national Democratic vote in the last five Presidential elections:

MI +4, +5, +9, +5, -2

WI -1, +2, +7, +3, -2

In retrospect 2016 was continuing a trend which started in 2012. So no, I wasn't warning everyone in 2015 about the danger of losing Michigan and Wisconsin particularly, and neither was anyone else that I can recall, but perhaps we all should have been.

Neither of these States experienced a swing within a single election cycle close to the magnitude of the 11 point swing it would take to make Texas a true swing State. But having found a 7 point swing just from looking at 10 data points, I'll concede it probably isn't quite as unlikely as I thought.

It would be interesting to look at the data for other States, but I'm sure someone has done it. Anyone have a link so I don't have to reinvent the wheel?

Last edited by Thing Fish; 05-24-2019 at 10:03 AM.
  #1168  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:22 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
O'Rourke losing to Cruz by almost 3% was not some huge accomplishment and the race being a moderately close loss (but a loss) was not unpredictable - even I was able to see it back in April '18, expecting it to be closer though.

Cruz was very damaged goods in an election with a huge national shift and Beto got lots of free attention as well as lots of funding. (Abbot for governor OTOH is pretty well liked and never at risk.)

That Quinnipiac poll is most notable in that O'Rourke doesn't poll significantly better than either Biden or Sanders. That doesn't speak to him being some special item in that state that any other well known ... let's be honest in this state ... white male Democrat ... doesn't also have.

I'm all for fighting in Texas, mainly for its impact on the rest of the ticket. But any that is spent there is at best matched by spending from the other side, at worst not matched and is money not spent where the D MUST win, and as has been pointed out, an election this cycle that wins Texas did not need Texas. And, also again, this poll shows that O'Rourke adds nothing to fighting in Texas that another known white male Democrat does not also bring.
  #1169  
Old 05-24-2019, 01:24 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
To win the W.H., the D's need Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and at least one of the following four: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin.

That's it. Talking about any state not in this list of 7 is a waste of time.
  #1170  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Is a waste of time in terms of the 2020 presidential result.

NOT a waste of time in terms of local elections to House and even some Senate seats.

Not a waste of time if over a few cycles it speeds up the day when a D presidential victory relies on one of those fairly tenuous combinations and instead has Texas placing purplish, even as Florida becomes less purple and more red.

The 2020 election is about more than the 2020 presidential winner alone, even though that needs to come first. It is about governing and accomplishing over the next four years and about being able to win in future cycles as well.

It also must be noted that any national tactic that tries hard to win AZ and FL (IOW not counting how much money and time is spent there but the who is on the ticket and what issues they emphasize in what ways) are likely going to correlate with impact in TX as well.
  #1171  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:14 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Yes. And I'm sorry if I come across as defeatist or desperate.

But Victory in November 2020 is absolutely essential. With rational humans at last in charge, we can then debate the details of healthcare, tuition, etc. at leisure.

If instead Trump wins, which is a strong possibility, the grief will be beyond any mercy; and time spent polishing the D agenda — especially in ways that just piss off the redneckish Rust-belt workers that electorally we depend on so very much — will then just be heartbreaking mirages.

Last edited by septimus; 05-24-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #1172  
Old 05-25-2019, 01:30 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
Cosigned.

The NPR Politics podcast this week featured clips from two Democrats (edit: make that a Democrat and a "Democrat") that really distill the fundamental question before Democratic primary voters this cycle (and all cycles, but especially this one):

Quote:
MONTANARO: Sanders himself responded to some of this on "Meet The Press" the next day because one of the things that Joe Biden also talked about was that you have to beat Trump. Like, that's the No. 1 thing - is beating Trump. And Bernie Sanders is saying that's not enough.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "MEET THE PRESS")

BERNIE SANDERS: Beating Trump is not good enough. You got to beat the fossil fuel industry. You have to take on all of those forces of the status quo who do not want to move this country to energy efficiency and sustainable energies.
So that's one side of the argument, certainly not the side I am on. Here is the other (emphasis mine):

Quote:
DETROW: But, I mean, we've all been dwelling on these - on this research [showing that 80 percent of tweets represent only two percent of the U.S. population]. And honestly, it has gotten to the point where I'm purposely checking Twitter less frequently because of that and trying to talk more to real human beings.[...]I was talking to some California Democrats about this electability issue. And I was surprised at how much some really prominent Democrats out there really embrace this idea. Barbara Boxer, a longtime senator from California, said, yeah, that's the most important thing. And Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles who has really been courting candidates, having tacos with some of them, trying to play a role of a power broker in this primary - he said that he has no problem with - I mean, a lot of issues are important to him. But he said, yep, electability is critical here.

ERIC GARCETTI: Oh, it's - I think everything - I'm proud of Democrats for finally pulling more about electability for president than having to be exactly the same positions that you hold. Republicans have known that for a long time. This is a national emergency. This isn't just about finding the perfect candidate. This is about replacing the current occupant in the White House. Secondly, then it's about what agenda we bring to bear after that. But if we don't have the White House, who cares? So we can be very starry-eyed and find somebody who suits our particular political beliefs and maybe have four more years where we're locked out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is everything. I never paid a lot of attention to Garcetti before, but I could just kiss him. I understand why Detrow was surprised: prominent Democrats aren't usually so blunt in expressing exasperation with the "purity troll" wing of the party. And a few months ago, it seemed like they would be more afraid than ever to do so. But although I don't support Biden for the nomination, I have to credit him with emboldening the pragmatists of the party, giving them a sense that whatever you might see on Twitter, it really is safe to just let 'er rip and say what needs to be said. This was almost a "callout", and I love it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Here are the differences between the Democratic vote in those states compared to the national Democratic vote in the last five Presidential elections:

MI +4, +5, +9, +5, -2

WI -1, +2, +7, +3, -2

Clearly you can slice and dice the numbers various ways. But in Texas, a state that has been moving demographically in our direction for years, Hillary lost by nine points. This seemed to be the main argument for why it was only going to go to Democrats as an "overkill" state, not a "tipping point" one. Yet Michigan was among three key states that swung in 2016, and Romney lost it by ten points the cycle before Trump won it.

And again, it doesn't have to actually tip the balance. If Trump has to spend time and money there to defend such a huge electoral prize (with expensive media markets and massive logistical issues for GOTV), that hurts his ability to focus like a laser on the Rust Belt.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-25-2019 at 01:32 AM.
  #1173  
Old 05-25-2019, 08:57 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
Beating Trump isn't enough. But it's a lot more complicated than Sanders is making it out to be there. What we need to beat is the social forces that made Trump possible, and that's a lot harder to pin down than "the fossil fuel industry" or "Wall street".
  #1174  
Old 05-25-2019, 02:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Meh.

Creating an enemy other, a boogeyman, like "the fossil fuel industry" or "Wall street"... or "Trump" ... or "immigrants", or "Islam" for that matter ... is Populism 101. Of course it is simplistic. The tactic is to get a bunch of voters as identifying as the "us" in a battle against a "them." Smaller fraction of American likely voters and more different and scarier the "them" is, the better for the tactic. It may not be great that the tactic works but it does fairly commonly. Simplistic messages easier than complexity.

My take remains that winning the White House is a necessary but insufficient notch in service of setting us on a less harmful if not fully positive path. We need a Congress that can get legislature accomplished and to be positioned for the long game of future elections as well.

Chronos, with full recognition of your statement that they are hard to pin down, what do you specifically identify as "the social forces that made Trump possible"?
  #1175  
Old 05-25-2019, 03:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
...
The NPR Politics podcast this week featured clips from two Democrats (edit: make that a Democrat and a "Democrat") that really distill the fundamental question before Democratic primary voters this cycle (and all cycles, but especially this one):
....

BERNIE SANDERS: Beating Trump is not good enough. You got to beat the fossil fuel industry. You have to take on all of those forces of the status quo who do not want to move this country to energy efficiency and sustainable energies.

This actually shows Sanders is behind the times, because in fact several of the Big oil companies are leaders in alternative energy.
  #1176  
Old 05-25-2019, 06:13 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
Quote:
Chronos, with full recognition of your statement that they are hard to pin down, what do you specifically identify as "the social forces that made Trump possible"?
If I knew that, I'd be winning elections.
  #1177  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:12 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
jThis actually shows Sanders is behind the times, because in fact several of the Big oil companies are leaders in alternative energy.

Interesting! A smart pivot on their part, hedging their bets.

It is of a piece with the way the Sanders crowd never seems to acknowledge the strides Walmart has made in cleaning up its act. Or they might pat themselves on the back for having pushed them to do so, without extending any credit to Walmart's management.
  #1178  
Old 05-25-2019, 08:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If I knew that, I'd be winning elections.
A clever enough response but the question is a bit serious, assuming the thesis you expressed is.

I'm not so sure that social forces get the primary credit/blame for electing Trump so much as uneven electoral power does, overweighting the impact of rural votes and over-concentrating Democratic voting strength in too few states.

And marketing forces play a role. The national Democratic party has not well articulated their message in a way that includes left behind rural Americans along with others. Sometimes the messaging can come off as othering them and also as a bit condescending.

My stab at the social forces is that the same demographic shifts that favor the Democratic Party's chances over the next decade or so, the increase in minority and youth voters and power, also is experienced as a bit frightening to many lower SES and less highly educated whites who are still dropping out of the middle even as the economy does well. And for some sociological reason Hispanic voters are not flexing their turnout muscle.

Even if I am right though ... I won't win any elections!
  #1179  
Old 05-25-2019, 08:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
Good analysis.
  #1180  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:05 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
Uneven electoral power was able to turn 40something percent of the voters into a majority of the electoral college. But when you've got 40something percent of the electorate supporting someone like Trump, that's already a sign of some sort of serious problem.
  #1181  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:07 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
True dat.
  #1182  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:24 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A clever enough response but the question is a bit serious, assuming the thesis you expressed is.

I'm not so sure that social forces get the primary credit/blame for electing Trump so much as uneven electoral power does, overweighting the impact of rural votes and over-concentrating Democratic voting strength in too few states.

And marketing forces play a role. The national Democratic party has not well articulated their message in a way that includes left behind rural Americans along with others. Sometimes the messaging can come off as othering them and also as a bit condescending.

My stab at the social forces is that the same demographic shifts that favor the Democratic Party's chances over the next decade or so, the increase in minority and youth voters and power, also is experienced as a bit frightening to many lower SES and less highly educated whites who are still dropping out of the middle even as the economy does well. And for some sociological reason Hispanic voters are not flexing their turnout muscle.

Even if I am right though ... I won't win any elections!
Openly wishing for demographic change to win future elections is one reason why democrats are having a hard time with current elections.
  #1183  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:01 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
I don’t hear or see much “wishing”. It’s more looking at the numbers and stating basic analysis, one that is shared by many who a few years ago were of power in the GOP as well. Assuming that each party keeps its current share and turnouts of each demographic favors the Ds in the future and in the present makes many lower SES white voters discomforted. Labeling that discomfort as racism alienates them further.
  #1184  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:13 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
But non-college whites have been shifting to the GOP. The shift of more educated whites the other way has moderated the effects, but there is still a lot of potential downside if Democrats don’t make it crystal clear straight white guys are welcome and valued in the big tent.
  #1185  
Old 05-26-2019, 10:42 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
It's interesting to look at the vote-predicting demographics. Back in Gore v Bush and Kerry v Bush it was church attendance that was a strong indicator of voting: Church-goers voted for Bush; the less religious voted for the D.

But now, education has become one of the best predictors. PhDs voted for Hillary; high schoolers and dropouts voted for Trump.

Last edited by septimus; 05-26-2019 at 10:43 AM.
  #1186  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:09 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But non-college whites have been shifting to the GOP. The shift of more educated whites the other way has moderated the effects, but there is still a lot of potential downside if Democrats don’t make it crystal clear straight white guys are welcome and valued in the big tent.
That’s not a “but”, it’s an “and”. It is what follows. And mixed into that is that non-college educated white is a decreasing portion of the relatively decreasing white demographic. One that is fairly consistently on the losing side of increasing wealth inequality. Straight white males feeling unwelcome is not the issue IMHO. No more than ever. Not as long as it is well educated straight white male.

This is where economic populism potentially resonates as a message. But messaging that in a way that doesn’t diminish the independent very real and significant impacts of other identity issues (institutional racism, sexism, and such) is tricky to say the least.

Last edited by DSeid; 05-26-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #1187  
Old 05-26-2019, 03:25 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,660
The thing about being a straight white male is, we're welcomed everywhere. Some of us just have a hard time accepting that it doesn't work that way for everyone.
  #1188  
Old 05-26-2019, 05:56 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,990
Individual-1 and Un are in agreement about what kind of person Joe Biden is. Will this enhance his popularity?
  #1189  
Old 05-26-2019, 07:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The thing about being a straight white male is, we're welcomed everywhere. Some of us just have a hard time accepting that it doesn't work that way for everyone.
When I was a Fed, I had to go into a couple of bad crime ridden Black neighborhoods. Trust me, as a white guy, I was NOT 'welcome".
  #1190  
Old 05-26-2019, 08:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The thing about being a straight white male is, we're welcomed everywhere.

Not in some vocal, highly visible “woke” sectors, we aren’t.
  #1191  
Old 06-01-2019, 08:56 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,843
The first debate is 26 and 27 June in Miami and we're into the mad scramble to qualify. The DNC is limiting the debate to 20 total (10 per night.) Rules for June and July's debates require either making 1% in three recognized national polls or having contributions from 65,000 individual donors. (There's and additional requirement for donors that the 65k includes at least 200 donors in 20 different states.) Meeting one is enough...unless they have to winnow the debate field to the hard limit of 20. If they have to winnow qualified candidates those that meet both get priority. Polling averages if the tie breaker if that still doesn't winnow the field enough.

An article, that's mostly about Gillibrand, includes where candidates are on meeting qualifications as of May 31st.

Those already meeting both criteria:
- Biden
- Booker
- Buttigieg
- Castro
- Gabbard
- Harris
- Inslee
- Klobuchar
- O'Rourke
- Sanders
- Warren
- Williamson
- Yang

Those meeting only the polling requirement:
- Bullock
- De Blasio
- Delaney
- Gillibrand
- Hickenlooper
- Ryan
- Swalwell

There's nobody meeting only the donor requirement. Those meeting neither requirement who would currently be excluded from the first debate:
- Bennet
- Gravel
- Messam
- Moulton

For those that haven't done the count and the math currently there's 20 candidates that have met one or both criteria for inclusion. Those only meeting the polling criteria continue to be at risk as the last push to qualify before the cutoff happens. Presumably those already dual qualified are pretty safe and will be participating.
  #1192  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:06 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,515
Man, Gillibrand's campaign really shit the bed. Until she announced, I feel like she was always listed among the top five contenders.
  #1193  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:16 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Thing is that some people have much more support in a smallish group of people that some see lots of in the social media feeds than they have more broadly. The punditocracy gets overly influenced by those social media feeds until actual polling reality checks them.

Gillibrand was like that. If one went by social media feeds one would have thought she had a broad base of support. Real world she never did and of those who knew of her many had unfavorable thoughts.
  #1194  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:07 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
I wasn't expecting her to have much support, because so many people were mad at her about Al Franken. (Personally, I was not only on her side on that, I was one of Franken's constituents and sent him a constituent-only email--that you have to be within the state's boundaries to send--calling on him to step down.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-02-2019 at 02:09 AM.
  #1195  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:30 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The GOP and the Kremlin actually aided Sanders campaign in order to hurt Hillary. If Sanders was the actual candidate they'd smear him so badly he might not even win his home state.
I'm sure things are different in San Jose, but in my neck of the woods, it sure seemed like Sanders was getting a lot of enthusiasm that Clinton wasn't. I know a number of Russians, and these weren't Russians.

Oh, and Hillary lost my state about 60-40 in the general. So if that's what kind of candidate you think the Democratic Party should nominate, I'd feel safer to just do the opposite of what you say, OK?
  #1196  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:29 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,782
If Hillary lost your state by 20 points, it’s safe to say it is irrelevant to the outcome of the 2020 election.
  #1197  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Oh, and Hillary lost my state about 60-40 in the general.
Missouri and Indiana also fit, but I'll guess Kansas ("Tornado Alley").

And, yes: come back when it makes a smidgen of difference which Democrat your state supports.
  #1198  
Old 06-02-2019, 09:48 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Interesting that Biden is skipping the California convention.
  #1199  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:53 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
It's Missouri. It had a Democratic governor from 2008 to 2016. It seems to have gotten redder since the 1990's. Maybe whatever kind of Democrat the Clintons are is political poison.

Hillary lost the industrial Midwest too. You need to stop writing entire swaths of the country off and deal with this.
  #1200  
Old 06-02-2019, 02:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Making decisions based on anecdotal impressions of who does better in deep red states is not the winning tactic.

Indeed writing off rural and industrial Midwest demographics is also not the most likely winning tactic either.
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 09:14 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