US Presidential Race 2020

[mboy]

Mar 11, 2020 11:04:29 GMT carolus said:

Mar 11, 2020 9:44:18 GMT Merseymike said:

What would be the point? He was an independent for years and there would be very little point in taking on this role. Best bet is to continue to damage Biden so he loses and then look towards the next generation.

Just so I've understood, are you saying that in a Trump-Biden contest you would be hoping that Trump wins?

I think Mike has already said that in Starmer vs Boris he's with Boris. Horseshoe theory.

[Adam in Stroud]

Mar 11, 2020 9:41:28 GMT Merseymike said:

Four more years for Trump.
Biden is not worth voting for and has very little to say other than proposing warmed up technocratic centralism. He will lose and will deserve to.

I completely get (though don't share) your assessment of Biden. But is there really evidence that he guarantees a win for Trump since voters won't turn out for Biden? I'm struck by nelson's observation upthread re Michigan that Sanders is up marginally in absolute votes from 2016 but down on vote share because Biden's vote is massively up on Clinton's.

Doesn't that suggest that Biden can mobilise votes better than Clinton and, in a swing state, can do it better than Sanders? By my maths a swing of less than 0.15% would have flipped that state from red to blue in 2016.

Personally I would take anyone, even a half-way competent Republican, over Trump, and would definitely take a Biden win over a Sanders loss.

[mboy]

Mar 11, 2020 11:14:06 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Mar 11, 2020 9:41:28 GMT Merseymike said:

Four more years for Trump.
Biden is not worth voting for and has very little to say other than proposing warmed up technocratic centralism. He will lose and will deserve to.

I completely get (though don't share) your assessment of Biden. But is there really evidence that he guarantees a win for Trump since voters won't turn out for Biden? I'm struck by nelson's observation upthread re Michigan that Sanders is up marginally in absolute votes from 2016 but down on vote share because Biden's vote is massively up on Clinton's.

Doesn't that suggest that Biden can mobilise votes better than Clinton and, in a swing state, can do it better than Sanders? By my maths a swing of less than 0.15% would have flipped that state from red to blue in 2016.

Personally I would take anyone, even a half-way competent Republican, over Trump, and would definitely take a Biden win over a Sanders loss.

I haven't seen data to back this up yet, but it seems like to me that Biden is better at motivating disaffected black folk to vote than Sanders is for disaffected white folk.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2020 11:14:06 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Mar 11, 2020 9:41:28 GMT Merseymike said:

Four more years for Trump.
Biden is not worth voting for and has very little to say other than proposing warmed up technocratic centralism. He will lose and will deserve to.

I completely get (though don't share) your assessment of Biden. But is there really evidence that he guarantees a win for Trump since voters won't turn out for Biden? I'm struck by nelson's observation upthread re Michigan that Sanders is up marginally in absolute votes from 2016 but down on vote share because Biden's vote is massively up on Clinton's.

Doesn't that suggest that Biden can mobilise votes better than Clinton and, in a swing state, can do it better than Sanders? By my maths a swing of less than 0.15% would have flipped that state from red to blue in 2016.

Personally I would take anyone, even a half-way competent Republican, over Trump, and would definitely take a Biden win over a Sanders loss.

though equally the primary turnout figures for Trump are pretty impressive for an incumbent

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2020 10:16:24 GMT mboy said:

^ That pretty much sums up your ideology Mike. It's what the phrase "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" was invented for.

I thought "having a good sulk" was more appropriate 

[timmullen1]

Mar 11, 2020 11:21:14 GMT mboy said:

Mar 11, 2020 11:14:06 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

I completely get (though don't share) your assessment of Biden. But is there really evidence that he guarantees a win for Trump since voters won't turn out for Biden? I'm struck by nelson's observation upthread re Michigan that Sanders is up marginally in absolute votes from 2016 but down on vote share because Biden's vote is massively up on Clinton's.

Doesn't that suggest that Biden can mobilise votes better than Clinton and, in a swing state, can do it better than Sanders? By my maths a swing of less than 0.15% would have flipped that state from red to blue in 2016.

Personally I would take anyone, even a half-way competent Republican, over Trump, and would definitely take a Biden win over a Sanders loss.

I haven't seen data to back this up yet, but it seems like to me that Biden is better at motivating disaffected black folk to vote than Sanders is for disaffected white folk.

Not just mobilising (older) African Americans but also getting the support of white suburban voters who have haemorrhaged away from the Republican Party under Trump, and who will likely be the decisive voters, as they were in the 2018 midterms, throughout much of the country in November.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Biden becoming the actual nominee makes the story of the Trump administration's actions in Ukraine, and subsequent impeachment inquiry, retrospectively legitimate and more significant.

[The Bishop]

Mar 11, 2020 9:41:28 GMT Merseymike said:

Four more years for Trump.
Biden is not worth voting for and has very little to say other than proposing warmed up technocratic centralism. He will lose and will deserve to.

An arguably more pertinent point is that Biden no longer up to it, and the coming months will make this obvious.

I know that the usual suspects on here will jump on me for saying this, so don't bother. Let's just see who is ultimately right, shall we?

Truth is, the Democrats should have coalesced behind Warren when they had the chance.

[nelson]

Consolation prize. 

[dizz]

Mar 11, 2020 12:14:01 GMT nelson said:

Consolation prize. 

53%:39%.

Shows how different a caucus is.

dizz returns to form with Paddy Power after a mixed year in 2019

[The Bishop]

And assuming Biden now has it in the bag and that is it for Sanders given his age, it might be worth remembering that future "left" challenges are likely to come indisputably from *within* the party. The deeply tribal line that "Sanders isn't really a Democrat", used to some effect both now and in 2016, simply won't be viable.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

When Corbyn became Labour leader, we all knew it would end in a repeat of 1983 and Labour reduced to 200 MPs. But because the youthful Corbynites didn't remember 1983, they simply dismissed the warnings.

Likewise, the US Democratic Party will have to go through another 1984 (and 1988) at some point. I'm modestly encouraged that they have managed to avoid it this year.

[mrpastelito]

Mar 11, 2020 12:26:46 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

When Corbyn became Labour leader, we all knew it would end in a repeat of 1983 and Labour reduced to 200 MPs. But because the youthful Corbynites didn't remember 1983, they simply dismissed the warnings.

Likewise, the US Democratic Party will have to go through another 1984 (and 1988) at some point. I'm modestly encouraged that they have managed to avoid it this year.

Confirming the fact that if there's one thing that can be learnt from history, it's that humans don't learn from history.

[The Bishop]

One key argument used against Corbyn for most of his time as leader was polling, yes those same polls that consistently show Sanders more electorally viable than Biden when it comes to beating Trump (which I had, perhaps naively, assumed was the whole point of the excercise)

And the idea that Mondale and Dukakis were outlandish left wingers is somewhat hard to sustain as well. There were other reasons for the GOP dominance in the 80s.

[nelson]

Mar 11, 2020 12:18:29 GMT dizz said:

Mar 11, 2020 12:14:01 GMT nelson said:

Consolation prize. 

53%:39%.

Shows how different a caucus is.

dizz returns to form with Paddy Power after a mixed year in 2019

It wasn't an actual caucus despite its name, but a party organised primary (a so-called "firehouse caucus"), but because the ND Democrats are poor there were only 14 polling stations, and the main reservations had one (and Native Americans are very pro-Sanders) and absentee voting required you to actively request a ballot, rather than every registered Democrat being sent one, so it had some of the caucus dynamic given that you had to put in a bit of effort to vote and that favoured Sanders. 

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2020 12:39:40 GMT The Bishop said:

One key argument used against Corbyn for most of his time as leader was polling, yes those same polls that consistently show Sanders more electorally viable than Biden when it comes to beating Trump (which I had, perhaps naively, assumed was the whole point of the excercise)

And the idea that Mondale and Dukakis were outlandish left wingers is somewhat hard to sustain as well. There were other reasons for the GOP dominance in the 80s.

Sanders is vastly more electable than Corbyn.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 11, 2020 13:03:46 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Mar 11, 2020 12:39:40 GMT The Bishop said:

One key argument used against Corbyn for most of his time as leader was polling, yes those same polls that consistently show Sanders more electorally viable than Biden when it comes to beating Trump (which I had, perhaps naively, assumed was the whole point of the excercise)

And the idea that Mondale and Dukakis were outlandish left wingers is somewhat hard to sustain as well. There were other reasons for the GOP dominance in the 80s.

Sanders is vastly more electable than Corbyn.

Indeed. Sanders is ten times the politician that Jeremy Corbyn was, and has actually had a responsible political job (Mayor of Burlington for eight years is not nothing). He has also succeeded in winning multiple state-wide elections as an Independent. Corbyn has managed to win a safe Parliamentary seat as part of a major political party.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2020 13:03:46 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Mar 11, 2020 12:39:40 GMT The Bishop said:

One key argument used against Corbyn for most of his time as leader was polling, yes those same polls that consistently show Sanders more electorally viable than Biden when it comes to beating Trump (which I had, perhaps naively, assumed was the whole point of the excercise)

And the idea that Mondale and Dukakis were outlandish left wingers is somewhat hard to sustain as well. There were other reasons for the GOP dominance in the 80s.

Sanders is vastly more electable than Corbyn.

Sanders <<insert name of person/pet/inanimate object>> is vastly more electable than Corbyn.

[Adam in Stroud]

Mar 11, 2020 11:26:52 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Mar 11, 2020 11:14:06 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

I completely get (though don't share) your assessment of Biden. But is there really evidence that he guarantees a win for Trump since voters won't turn out for Biden? I'm struck by nelson 's observation upthread re Michigan that Sanders is up marginally in absolute votes from 2016 but down on vote share because Biden's vote is massively up on Clinton's.

Doesn't that suggest that Biden can mobilise votes better than Clinton and, in a swing state, can do it better than Sanders? By my maths a swing of less than 0.15% would have flipped that state from red to blue in 2016.

Personally I would take anyone, even a half-way competent Republican, over Trump, and would definitely take a Biden win over a Sanders loss.

though equally the primary turnout figures for Trump are pretty impressive for an incumbent

Trump's ability to mobilise his base is formidable but a given. The question is: which Dem can best counter it? (Don't ask me, I'm ignorant.)

[CatholicLeft]

Mar 11, 2020 11:40:26 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 11, 2020 11:21:14 GMT mboy said:

I haven't seen data to back this up yet, but it seems like to me that Biden is better at motivating disaffected black folk to vote than Sanders is for disaffected white folk.

Not just mobilising (older) African Americans but also getting the support of white suburban voters who have haemorrhaged away from the Republican Party under Trump, and who will likely be the decisive voters, as they were in the 2018 midterms, throughout much of the country in November.

This. We are ignoring the fact that large numbers of conservative white suburban women cannot stomach Donald Trump and they will be the key to the next election, insomuch that their turnout will swing close elections. Joe Biden has more hope of attracting them to vote for him than just sitting on their hands.