# Nevada Democratic Debate February 2020 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 20, 2020, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209 "2020-02-20T01:28:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Raskolnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac8455/32.png) [@Raskolnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raskolnikov)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/161 "2020-02-20T16:20:11Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Even factoring in that all of this is speculative and anybody can basically posit whatever they want and be equally “right,” I think this approaches being demonstrably false. Sanders has consistently been at or near the top of the second choice polls among supporters of other candidates, and he’s certainly the most likely candidate to appeal to people who aren’t Democrats at all, and thus haven’t played as much of a role in the horse race narrative so far. Besides which: how has relying on “he may be the leader _now_, but he won’t pick up any _other_ support” worked out for you in recent national politics? > > Your second sentence there is in very bad faith. It’s like framing abortion in terms of murdering babies and saying “I can’t see how _that_ is a winning issue.” Can you, perhaps, see how someone who isn’t you might frame that issue a little more generously? correct on all, he won most of the battleground states against Hillary, won 71 or 72 counties in Wisconsin for instance, Bloomberg himself said Bernie would’ve beaten Trump and a lot of the subsequent polling indicates this. He has tremendous crossover support, looking at Iowa by congressional district he was the most popular Dem in Steve King’s district, he’s an arch-conservative. This is crossover appeal. He’s the second choice for Biden supporters as well. I love how the corporately bought and paid for modern Democrat party can only talk about unions when they are trying to dissuade people from single payer. They don’t care about unions , never seems to ever come up, about 10% of the workforce is in a union (including law enforcement and fire which votes mostly Republican) but now all of a sudden there are _all_ these union employees with Cadillac plans we’re supposed to worry about? Most labor contracts are 3 years, Bernie’s Medicare plan would be phased in over 4 years so that union will be able to negotiate even better pay and benefits knowing healthcare will be taken care of. Healthcare is the main fighting point in labor negotiations already. At least people in unions will have that right, companies can save money and if you’re not in a union you’ll have to negotiate yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/162 "2020-02-20T16:31:17Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > People see “billionaire” and they think, “eh, it’s just like a multimillionaire, but more so.” NO! Those are two very separate tiers and the billionaire class are the ones who need to be curtailed here. A millionaire can hire 1,000 people to work him for $1,000. A billionaire can hire ONE MILLION people to work for him for $1,000. I’ve had quite a few people stop in their tracks when I present it to them like that. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/163 "2020-02-20T16:53:01Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > He’s not coming across as sympathetic, though. He comes off as arrogant and entitled, both in response to Warren’s non-disclosure agreement queries and why his tax return has not yet been released. “I just got into this race 10 weeks ago!” I mean, seriously? I didn’t get arrogant from the tax/money part. He didn’t try to hide the fact the he has 60B in the bank, and was simply saying it takes a long time to get his tax info in order to release it. We will see if he does that. But the non-disclosure part is troubling. He will have to address that, pronto. > [@Lamoral](#): > > Worse than that though: he sounds _weak._ He sounds _feeble._ His performance on this stage is so utterly flaccid and half-assed, it’s like he really honestly believes that he doesn’t need to try to sell himself to voters. His stage presence makes Joe Biden look like Freddie Mercury. He’s tedious, dry, completely humorless - and this is after ALL the hype about how he’s the only one who can beat Trump because he’s the only one who can afford to outspend Trump. I pretty much agree with this although I’m not sure if I would go so far as to say “feeble”. But I was watching Andrew Yang on CNN last night, who brought up the fact that Bloomberg only found out that he would be in the debate a few days ago, and obviously hadn’t been coached, or prepared much for it. Bloomberg was elected 3 times in the rough-and-tumble world of New York City politics, so he certainly has something to offer on the campaign trail. I am holding off judgement for now and will be interested to see how he does in the next one. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/164 "2020-02-20T16:54:49Z")
Warren seemed desperate to land punches and be destructive. I guess her poor showings in IA and NH make it now the time to do and say anything to score points and appear on the radar and not look irrelevant. Bloomberg was teed-up with the question on his treatment of women and Warren seemed all to happy to club him over the head with it. I think Klobuchar did OK and her contrite response on forgetting the name of the President of Mexico was acceptable. Pete hammering on it seemed petty and pointless. I wish she would calm slightly and appear a little more patient to respond. The Telemundo reporter had her in the cross-hairs with the gotcha questions, and I think she handled them OK. I agree with the previous point that Pete seems like a programmed bot ready to react to anything anyone says, but when it’s time to offer some details of his own plans, he only leans-in with platitudes of unity and togetherness and warm cookies with milk. Biden appeared like the GOP is likely to depict him - as a crazy, loud, old man replaying his glory days. I did not hear a lot of new ideas from him, just a lot of “I did this” and “I did that” and trying to connect his possible presidency with that of Obama. Bloomberg could have done a lot better but seemed unprepared. He should have known his weak points and prepared for them, but seemed weak in his explanation of Stop and Frisk, and had no counter punch for Warren’s attack on the women’s issue. I think he is best when sticking to issues and not taking the bait on the non-issues. He was right to call out that Trump and the GOP was probably delighted in hearing the debate discuss wealth redistribution. Sanders also seemed like an angry old man but at least he was discussing some new ideas and highlighting real problems. However, he really doubled-down on the my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric and I think Bloomberg is probably correct that if Bernie is the nominee, Trump wins. Pete is also correct that Bernie is too polarizing outside the party. All this being said, I know who I am NOT voting for in the general. I just hope that the eventual nominee can get the rest of them in line along with their supporters and do the right thing and vote when it counts. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/165 "2020-02-20T16:58:51Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > He’s not coming across as sympathetic, though. He comes off as arrogant and entitled, both in response to Warren’s non-disclosure agreement queries and why his tax return has not yet been released. “I just got into this race 10 weeks ago!” I mean, seriously? I didn’t get arrogant from the tax/money part. He didn’t try to hide the fact the he has 60B in the bank, and was simply saying it takes a long time to get his tax info in order to release it. We will see if he does that. But the non-disclosure part is troubling. He will have to address that, pronto. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/166 "2020-02-20T17:12:11Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > Sanders also seemed like an angry old man but at least he was discussing some new ideas and highlighting real problems. However, he really doubled-down on the my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric and I think Bloomberg is probably correct that if Bernie is the nominee, Trump wins. Pete is also correct that Bernie is too polarizing outside the party. Can you articulate why you think being polarizing outside the party is bad, if inside the party everyone votes blue? If anything, don’t you think he’s polarizing along economic, age, and ethnic lines? I would think that kind of polarization once Democrats are accounted for would at least be equally likely to be helpful to a Democratic candidate as to hurt them, since you’re not looking to convince lots of people who are at exactly the equilibrium point between Trump and a Democrat - you’re looking to convince lots of people who might not vote at all or might vote third party. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/167 "2020-02-20T17:28:16Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I didn’t get arrogant from the tax/money part. He didn’t try to hide the fact the he has 60B in the bank, and was simply saying it takes a long time to get his tax info in order to release it. We will see if he does that. But the non-disclosure part is troubling. He will have to address that, pronto. Isn’t it clear to you, to everyone, that he’s NOT GOING TO “address” it? His answer to it (and I was disappointed that they didn’t press him harder) was so utterly “not an answer”, and there’s never going to be an answer. He doesn’t care about it at all. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/168 "2020-02-20T17:31:54Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > I wouldn’t put it exactly how you did, but yeah, generally you’re correct. The anti-BILLIONAIRE thing can’t be emphasized enough and most people in America don’t really understand just how big of a gap there is between millionaires and billionaires. > > That guy who’s a successful construction company owner or a doctor who owns investment properties or something, who has a 15,000 square foot house with pools and tennis courts and 5 Porsches, and a sportfishing boat in a slip at Gulf Shores and a hunting camp in the Upper Peninsula and maybe even a Beechcraft King Air that he flies himself around the country - THIS GUY IS STILL _NOTHING_ compared to a BILLIONAIRE. His lifestyle, his level of influence on society, his sheer POWER in the world - it’s still absolutely NOTHING compared to a billionaire. > > People see “billionaire” and they think, “eh, it’s just like a multimillionaire, but more so.” NO! Those are two very separate tiers and the billionaire class are the ones who need to be curtailed here. Which is why its so idiotic when people point out that Sanders owns 3 homes or makes 200k a year. Those people aren’t the problem. The professional class aren’t the ones stealing all the wealth. It is the top 0.1% doing that. Even Bernies wealth tax doesn’t kick in until you have at minimum 32 million in wealth. Even then, it is only 1-2% for most rich people. Mitt Romney has 250 million in wealth, I think he would only pay about 4.2 million a year in the wealth tax, less than 2% of his net worth. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/169 "2020-02-20T17:32:17Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Isn’t it clear to you, to everyone, that he’s NOT GOING TO “address” it? His answer to it (and I was disappointed that they didn’t press him harder) was so utterly “not an answer”, and there’s never going to be an answer. He doesn’t care about it at all. Well, no, it’s not immediately clear to me, as this was his first debate. We will see. As I said, he will have to address it, and we can be damn sure the question is going to come up again. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/170 "2020-02-20T17:33:32Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > I think Klobuchar did OK and her contrite response on forgetting the name of the President of Mexico was acceptable. Pete hammering on it seemed petty and pointless. I wish she would calm slightly and appear a little more patient to respond. The Telemundo reporter had her in the cross-hairs with the gotcha questions, and I think she handled them OK. I don’t know. “Flustered” is how I’d describe her performance, in the most objective sense possible. It was especially noticeable when she would attempt to talk over other people who were talking, and make hand gestures and audibly say stuff like “aw, come on”. If this is how she responds to Pete Buttigieg, she is in no way ready for what Trump would throw at her in a debate. She also seems to have a habit of changing the subject to how bad of a guy Donald Trump is, when she is not sure how to respond to something. I’ve noticed this in all of the debates. At some point she will say, “what we really need to talk about…is DONALD TRUMP, and how he…” blah blah. Yeah. We all know that these candidates do not like Donald Trump. It’s not an effective pivot. And she’s not going to have Elizabeth Warren to jump in and big her up during her debates with Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/171 "2020-02-20T17:35:32Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So Pete showed his stuff by going after the most long-shot candidate, the one with the least support? Cool! > > “A hundred forty-one could draw faster than he, > but Irving was looking for one-forty-three.” > > -“The Ballad of Irving” (“the 142nd fastest gun in the West”) I too was struck by this last night. All I can figure is that he feels that as he and Amy are both mid-westerners and seen as NOT part of the older Warren/Biden/Sanders group, and thinks he could pick off her supporters. So in that regard, perhaps it made sense for him to do it. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/172 "2020-02-20T17:40:06Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Can you articulate why you think being polarizing outside the party is bad, if inside the party everyone votes blue? If anything, don’t you think he’s polarizing along economic, age, and ethnic lines? > > I would think that kind of polarization once Democrats are accounted for would at least be equally likely to be helpful to a Democratic candidate as to hurt them, since you’re not looking to convince lots of people who are at exactly the equilibrium point between Trump and a Democrat - you’re looking to convince lots of people who might not vote at all or might vote third party. IMHO, I think Republicans are turned-off by Bernie and he will be branded a lefty Socialist whose election will result in the US turning into Venezuela (which of course is totally not true) and their health care uncertain. Less-informed voters (I am being kind here) will not bother to look any further, and will hear the call of the good economy and not vote for change. In order to win the election, the candidate will need some amount of cross-over appeal, especially in purple states. I fear Sanders will not be able to pull over enough moderates and they will vote for the devil they know. If you think Sanders can win on voter turnout alone, that may be a close call. I am not sure I would take that bet. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/173 "2020-02-20T17:59:34Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > ETA: He [Bloomberg] truly was not prepared to answer on the racial and women’s attacks. Stunning. He better prep better going forward on those. When it came to actually talking about what he would do on various issues, he was fine. But you know, maybe he _was_ prepared for it. As he started to answer, it sounded like a bomb. But then I thought, if you don’t have a good answer, then by definition any answer you give is going to be horrible. He can’t just apologize for it, as he’s already done that. He certainly can’t try to defend such a poor policy again, since he was excoriated for it. So maybe his strategy is just to say as little as possible when answering, no matter how many times he’s asked questions, and just hope the public doesn’t hold it against him all that much. Or even look into it, if they aren’t familiar with it in the first place. Don’t give it any weight with an answer, and just hope it will go away. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/174 "2020-02-20T18:36:25Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Sanders is a cranky old man. It was fun watching him get slapped around by Bloomberg. The millionaire bitching about billionaires being immoral is just such a weird side show. He is a 76 year old US male, a long time politician and national figure in the US pursuing progressive policies on the left. He’s a bestselling author and a grandfather. He isn’t being acquisitive or exploitative that I can see. Having a million dollar net worth at that stage of life or attainment is just not “rich”. It’s more the hypocritical bugaboo of right wing trolls. It looks like he’s living the american social democratic dream. But the pundits want to deny the dream, by calling him a confiscatory communist. Well quite clearly he is not. Anyone who says he is too rich to pursue such progressive goals is being ridiculous and unamerican. If he was a bum it would just be used as ammunition over his character in another way. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/175 "2020-02-20T18:47:39Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > Sanders also seemed like an angry old man but at least he was discussing some new ideas and highlighting real problems. However, he really doubled-down on the my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric and I think Bloomberg is probably correct that if Bernie is the nominee, Trump wins. Pete is also correct that Bernie is too polarizing outside the party. > > . At a time like this, of what value is the rhetoric of those who aren’t describing their plan with vision and specificity? If they have a specific vision (you know, about democracy, the climate and chaos, that stuff) would that also be “my way or the highway”? Why should they have any plan at all if it interferes wth electibility? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/176 "2020-02-20T19:25:37Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > IMHO, I think Republicans are turned-off by Bernie and he will be branded a lefty Socialist whose election will result in the US turning into Venezuela (which of course is totally not true) and their health care uncertain. Less-informed voters (I am being kind here) will not bother to look any further, and will hear the call of the good economy and not vote for change. In order to win the election, the candidate will need some amount of cross-over appeal, especially in purple states. I fear Sanders will not be able to pull over enough moderates and they will vote for the devil they know. If you think Sanders can win on voter turnout alone, that may be a close call. I am not sure I would take that bet. I agree with a lot of this, but I think it all fits together differently than you. I agree for sure that he’ll be branded a lefty socialist (already is, just from friendly fire) and it will get worse. I agree that will turn some people off, and that there will be lots of people who see economic upheaval and look at their own economic circumstances and think they’d rather it not get worse, all things being equal. I don’t agree about this business of the “moderate,” though, which is where my question was coming from. Of course, you’ve got whatever percentage of blue no matter who votes, and you’ve got whatever percentage of MAGA votes. That leaves all the people who might actually do different things, depending on who the Democrats nominate. Your point is, well, if you map all those people left-to-right in terms of their politics, you want a candidate who is palatable to all the people in the middle, because then you get the middle and you presumably get most of the left, and then Trump doesn’t get those middle votes. And that’s a reasonable point. It’s Warren’s “we want a candidate who excites all parts of the party” and Buttigieg’s “we don’t want a candidate who wants to burn everything down,” except applied to the whole country instead of the party. But I don’t think that group of undecideds really does map to a left/right spectrum the way (I think) you’re assuming they will. I don’t think they’re moderates in that sense. I think any true moderates are already effectively Democrats by now anyway, because moderation is and has been what the Democratic party is selling. I think the undecideds are a weird sloppy mess of lots of different motivations, and cross-over appeal is more of a matter of convergence of particular interests than it is a game theory decision of capturing 51% of the available space. They’re already polarized, but they’re polarized along like ten different axes, not just left/right. And not everybody is polarized the same on all those axes. I think that group of people maps very differently depending on _what_ the candidate talks about, not just where their politics are in a left/right sense. You can be super leftist and talk about the environment and healthcare and worker rights, and you can also be super leftist and talk about guns and abortion and racism, and you can also be super leftist and talk about drone strikes and immigration and international cooperation. Depending on which one of those you do – in my unified theory of politics, obviously – you can attract and repel different people from all over the red/blue map. Somebody can’t _extra_ not vote for you, they can either vote for you or not. You can have crazy things happen like voters whose first choice is a socialist and their second choice is an oligarch or a whatever-Trump-is. Or even people who voted Obama and then voted Trump, despite the traditional analysis precluding anything but literal insanity justifying that combination. I think the 2016 Democratic primary voting showed that there’s something Sanders is selling that speaks to voters the Democrats otherwise can’t or won’t or don’t speak to. I think 2020 will too. It’s not just right/left, it’s whose interests you’re talking about and how. I really think that the modern Democratic approach of out-centering the hypothetical center and following polling wherever it leads really misses this, and misses out on a lot of voters, because when you do things that way you aren’t even trying to sell anybody on anything. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/177 "2020-02-20T19:28:31Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > He is a 76 year old US male, a long time politician… 78, actually. And, as a bonus, he just had his first heart attack! ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/178 "2020-02-20T20:08:57Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > :dubious: > > The bolded part has me questioning every other thing you’ve written about this debate. Yep, I screwed up and got my old socialists mixed up. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/179 "2020-02-20T20:14:14Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I agree with a lot of this, but I think it all fits together differently than you. I agree for sure that he’ll be branded a lefty socialist (already is, just from friendly fire) and it will get worse. I agree that will turn some people off, and that there will be lots of people who see economic upheaval and look at their own economic circumstances and think they’d rather it not get worse, all things being equal. > > I don’t agree about this business of the “moderate,” though, which is where my question was coming from. Of course, you’ve got whatever percentage of blue no matter who votes, and you’ve got whatever percentage of MAGA votes. That leaves all the people who might actually do different things, depending on who the Democrats nominate. Your point is, well, if you map all those people left-to-right in terms of their politics, you want a candidate who is palatable to all the people in the middle, because then you get the middle and you presumably get most of the left, and then Trump doesn’t get those middle votes. And that’s a reasonable point. It’s Warren’s “we want a candidate who excites all parts of the party” and Buttigieg’s “we don’t want a candidate who wants to burn everything down,” except applied to the whole country instead of the party. > > But I don’t think that group of undecideds really does map to a left/right spectrum the way (I think) you’re assuming they will. I don’t think they’re moderates in that sense. I think any true moderates are already effectively Democrats by now anyway, because moderation is and has been what the Democratic party is selling. I think the undecideds are a weird sloppy mess of lots of different motivations, and cross-over appeal is more of a matter of convergence of particular interests than it is a game theory decision of capturing 51% of the available space. They’re already polarized, but they’re polarized along like ten different axes, not just left/right. And not everybody is polarized the same on all those axes. I think that group of people maps very differently depending on _what_ the candidate talks about, not just where their politics are in a left/right sense. You can be super leftist and talk about the environment and healthcare and worker rights, and you can also be super leftist and talk about guns and abortion and racism, and you can also be super leftist and talk about drone strikes and immigration and international cooperation. > > Depending on which one of those you do – in my unified theory of politics, obviously – you can attract and repel different people from all over the red/blue map. Somebody can’t _extra_ not vote for you, they can either vote for you or not. You can have crazy things happen like voters whose first choice is a socialist and their second choice is an oligarch or a whatever-Trump-is. Or even people who voted Obama and then voted Trump, despite the traditional analysis precluding anything but literal insanity justifying that combination. I think the 2016 Democratic primary voting showed that there’s something Sanders is selling that speaks to voters the Democrats otherwise can’t or won’t or don’t speak to. I think 2020 will too. It’s not just right/left, it’s whose interests you’re talking about and how. I really think that the modern Democratic approach of out-centering the hypothetical center and following polling wherever it leads really misses this, and misses out on a lot of voters, because when you do things that way you aren’t even trying to sell anybody on anything. Excellent post. ---
**Author:** ![Socsback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Socsback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Socsback)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2020, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209/180 "2020-02-20T20:54:54Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I don’t like Pete. But I’m of the left. I don’t see the strong reason why he is on there. He spends a lot of time and energy on very public reasonable explanations of things that we already know. To me it’s that he can’t go deeper. Campaign with poetry and govern with prose. It’s a good strategy. Going into policy detail at this state is a mistake. To this day, people are calling out Obama for saying that you could keep your doctor, and ridiculing Trump for saying that Mexico would pay for the wall. LBJ didn’t detail his New Deal proposal until after he was elected, and it worked amazingly well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nevada-democratic-debate-february-2020/848209.md?page=10)