DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
ml1 said:
mrincredible said:
That's not my point. I'm pretty sure almost everyone on here will vote for whoever is the eventual nominee. But this is a fairly well read group of politically aware people.
what is happening here is much more than simply arguing about which candidate is better. There is insulting of each other's candidates going on. There is a sense of defeatism regarding other candidates. Bernie could never win. Biden could never win. Bloomberg is as bad as Trump.
I don't think there's a healthy debate going on here or in the Democratic party at Large. I'm not actively on social media but I do occasionally read some Twitter feeds, and I see the same themes played out there. We are poisoning ourselves.
I'm already concerned that Trump is going to be reelected regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. And that's because he has retained almost all of the support he had in 2016, and without people voting in 2020 who didn't four years ago, it's going to be hard for any Democrat to win. If that's "defeatism", so be it. I think it's realism.
Except that 2018 showed that he has NOT retained all that 2016 support.
here's a good op-ed on why voting "strategically" in the primaries is more than likely an exercise in futility.
It's Super Tuesday, and the race is more volatile than you think: Vote with your heart!
Dennis_Seelbach said:
ml1 said:
mrincredible said:
That's not my point. I'm pretty sure almost everyone on here will vote for whoever is the eventual nominee. But this is a fairly well read group of politically aware people.
what is happening here is much more than simply arguing about which candidate is better. There is insulting of each other's candidates going on. There is a sense of defeatism regarding other candidates. Bernie could never win. Biden could never win. Bloomberg is as bad as Trump.
I don't think there's a healthy debate going on here or in the Democratic party at Large. I'm not actively on social media but I do occasionally read some Twitter feeds, and I see the same themes played out there. We are poisoning ourselves.
I'm already concerned that Trump is going to be reelected regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. And that's because he has retained almost all of the support he had in 2016, and without people voting in 2020 who didn't four years ago, it's going to be hard for any Democrat to win. If that's "defeatism", so be it. I think it's realism.
Except that 2018 showed that he has NOT retained all that 2016 support.
And this current, 2020 data bears that out state-by-state. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
For example,Trump's net approval in Wisco is down 17(!) points since he took office. Michigan, 18 pts. Florida, 19 points.
nohero said:
And for what it's worth, a local news source in South Carolina has been looking at the data from the primary:
The Upstate, widely considered the state’s Bible Belt, is where most of Sanders’ precinct-level victories came. Statewide he topped Biden in 150 precincts, yet more than half of them were in Anderson, Cherokee, Greenville, Pickens, Spartanburg and York counties.
The region is home to the Conservative Defense Fund, where in early February Chris Sullivan launched Operation Chaos 2020. The goal was to urge Republicans to “prevent the strongest Democrat” from winning the primary, with the implied mission of backing Sanders, the Vermont independent in the U.S. Senate but Democratic Socialist on the trail.
Bingo! Same may happen in Virginia and other states.
"Conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt announced that he planned to back Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Virginia Democratic primary because "he's authentic.
The conservative host clarified that he was not planning to vote for the independent Vermont senator in the 2020 general election and will instead support President Trump."
There are definitely plenty of Dems in MAPSO who will not vote for Biden if he is the nominee. They just don't post on MOL.
Smedley said:
And this current, 2020 data bears that out state-by-state. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
For example,Trump's net approval in Wisco is down 17(!) points since he took office. Michigan, 18 pts. Florida, 19 points.
I'm hoping that translates into voting results.
But we should remember that his net approval was a lot more negative during the election in 2016 than it was at inauguration.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
And this current, 2020 data bears that out state-by-state. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
For example,Trump's net approval in Wisco is down 17(!) points since he took office. Michigan, 18 pts. Florida, 19 points.
I'm hoping that translates into voting results.
But we should remember that his net approval was a lot more negative during the election in 2016 than it was at inauguration.
We do have the midterms, which were actual votes. They're not dispositive -- voting for a specific candidate is different than hundreds of individual races -- but I think they show that Trump's loss of support can, in fact, translate into less votes (even with the caveat than can doesn't necessarily mean will)
I have serious doubts about Biden, but I really liked this:
I have been drawn to the vision & electricity of @ewarren and the policy record of @MikeBloomberg on guns/climate. But I voted today for @JoeBiden. Here’s why:2:30 PM · Mar 3, 2020·Twitter for iPhone595597 Retweets1.9K Likes
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hReplying to @SamanthaJPowerThe foundations of a progressive policy platform are empathy and decency, which @JoeBiden embodies to a truly rare extent. These qualities are also the antithesis of the narcissism and cruelty of @realDonaldTrump. The contrast will be stark.90167715
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1h.@JoeBiden is running not to go back in time or to “unite” w/ a @GOP that now cares more about itself than the country. He is running to bring America to a place where we care for one another, where everyone is seen and included & where government has your back when you stumble.48123527
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hDuring the @BarackObama admin, I was stunned to learn something @JoeBiden never advertised: when he meets someone who’s suffered great personal loss, he gives them his personal cell #. “If you feel low & have no place to turn, call me,” he says. Grieving strangers cld call @VP.97184678
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hPeople see themselves in @JoeBiden and he practices what his dad preached to him: “Joey, nobody’s better than you and you’re better than nobody.” Biden’s reflexive devotion to dignity and equality are what caused him to lead the Obama admin to the right place on same-sex marriage39106498
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1h@JoeBiden understands what @SherrodBrown calls the “dignity of work.” When people lose their jobs, when they can’t earn a living wage, when nothing they do allows them to make ends meet, that is a violation of something primal: a desire for agency, self-sufficiency and dignity.15109464
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hWhen his beloved son Beau served in Iraq, @JoeBiden says he saw what the poet John Milton meant when he wrote, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” The human stakes of foreign policy decision making are visceral to Biden. His connection w/ military families is personal.894424
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hIn the campaign b4 #SouthCarolina, @JoeBiden maybe overrelied on the arg that he had already negotiated w/ world leaders & wd have them on speed dial on Day1. But #coronavirus reminds us of the indispensability of 1) experience and 2) being able to galvanize global cooperation1080406
Samantha Power@SamanthaJPower·1hMuch more to say, but I must mention @DrBiden who could have done anything with her life, but chose to teach at community college. She will make one hell of a First Lady.
Klinker said:
There are definitely plenty of Dems in MAPSO who will not vote for Biden if he is the nominee. They just don't post on MOL.
They're the ones who "free ride" on those of us in NJ who'll vote for the Democratic nominee, same as in 2016.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
And that's because he has retained almost all of the support he had in 2016 ...
How do you figure?
His net favorability was actually worse in 2016 than his job approval ratings are now. Maybe that's flawed thinking. But isn't that point implicit in all of the worrying that Trump will take PA, WI, and MI again? If his support isn't there anymore, we don't have anything to worry about, do we?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
@Smedley, I loved that. She articulated feelings that I've had since the last election, when he chose not to run.
I tried to explain something similar to my close friend today. I meant to reassure her that despite poor debate performances, even if Trump taunted and insulted him, some of us, would shrug it off and say a version of what Samantha Power said.( And what a VP she would make. )
If I'm going to be hopeful for the next few months, I can only do that, focusing on the good qualities of each candidate and hope that the one who can defeat Trump wins.
They are all smart, they are all experienced, so how badly can it turn out.
ml1 said:
His net favorability was actually worse in 2016 than his job approval ratings are now. Maybe that's flawed thinking. But isn't that point implicit in all of the worrying that Trump will take PA, WI, and MI again? If his support isn't there anymore, we don't have anything to worry about, do we?
C’mon, ml1. The King of Strawmen crown is an ill fit. The alternative to “he has retained almost all of his support” doesn’t have to be “his support isn’t there anymore.”
And, no, that isn’t the implicit point in the worrying. The worry is that while Trump’s diminished support makes him vulnerable — or so the argument goes — the biggest mistake the Democrats could make would be to nominate a candidate who risks ending up being even more objectionable.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
His net favorability was actually worse in 2016 than his job approval ratings are now. Maybe that's flawed thinking. But isn't that point implicit in all of the worrying that Trump will take PA, WI, and MI again? If his support isn't there anymore, we don't have anything to worry about, do we?
C’mon, ml1. The King of Strawmen crown is an ill fit. The alternative to “he has retained almost all of his support” doesn’t have to be “his support isn’t there anymore.”
And, no, that isn’t the implicit point in the worrying. The worry is that while Trump’s diminished support makes him vulnerable — or so the argument goes — the biggest mistake the Democrats could make would be to nominate a candidate who risks ending up being even more objectionable.
More objectionable than Trump?
How is that humanly possible? (Bloomberg not withstanding. 
)
DaveSchmidt said:
C’mon, ml1. The King of Strawmen crown is an ill fit. The alternative to “he has retained almost all of his support” doesn’t have to be “his support isn’t there anymore.”
And, no, that isn’t the implicit point in the worrying. The worry is that while Trump’s diminished support makes him vulnerable — or so the argument goes — the biggest mistake the Democrats could make would be to nominate a candidate who risks ending up being even more objectionable.
sloppy writing again. I didn't mean all of Trump's support might be gone. I meant if the support isn't the same as what it was before. And the swing states were so close that 2-3 percentage points less support would be enough that Trump's chances of winning would be severely diminished.
And to echo db, I don't think there's any information that suggests any of the Democrats is more objectionable than Trump.
If the suggestion is that Sanders is more objectionable it does require rejecting a lot of poll results. Not suggesting the polls might not be flawed. But saying any of the Democrats is more objectionable than Trump means going with intuition over demographics and polls.
ml1 said:
If the suggestion is that Sanders is more objectionable it does require rejecting a lot of poll results. Not suggesting the polls might not be flawed. But saying any of the Democrats is more objectionable than Trump means going with intuition over demographics and polls.
Again I was just restating the logic, which is not undone by the point that you thought might be implicit.
That aside, you already know how easy it is for me to reject winter poll results for a November election.
drummerboy said:
More objectionable than Trump?
How is that humanly possible? (Bloomberg not withstanding.)
Don’t ask me. Ask the people you discuss politics with in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
The encouraging thing tonight, combined with SC, is that turnout seems to be up dramatically, which is the whole key to this mess.
drummerboy said:
The encouraging thing tonight, combined with SC, is that turnout seems to be up dramatically, which is the whole key to this mess.
I hope that the turnout holds up for whoever's the nominee.
One interpretation: Bloomberg is preventing Biden from slaughtering Sanders in some states and beating him in others. That may be simplistic. I guess you also need to look at what Warren is picking up and deciding if it hurts Sanders or not.
Note: Tulsi Gabbard has one delegate now from American Samoa.
DaveSchmidt said:
Again I was just restating the logic, which is not undone by the point that you thought might be implicit.
That aside, you already know how easy it is for me to reject winter poll results for a November election.
it's even easier to reject intuition as the source for predictions of November election results.
I have to give credit to CNN's IT department (or whoever was responsible - probably outsourced). Their voting maps are pretty darn good. Lots of info but easily digestible.
It's too bad that MOL isn't typical of the Country or Elizabeth Warren would be running away with the nomination.
It is what it is and Donald Trump is the scum of the Earth. If he is reelected then America is over. Young people should be encouraged to emigrate and perhaps California and other States should seriously consider secession.
Bernie is making a speech and attacking Biden very strongly and the crowd is booing every mention of Biden.
I think Bernie made a great contribution to the political discussion but I think his time has passed.
sbenois said:
She can't even win her home state.
She can’t even finish 2nd in her home state.
I really hope the eventual nominee secures a majority, not just a plurality, of delegates by the convention.
Scenario 1: Warren is Biden's VP. He shakes all the hands and does all the hugs; she puts policies together and does most of the speaking.
Scenario 2: Pete is Biden's VP. A veteran son who lost a father with a father who lost a veteran son.
Scenario 3: Bernie with Bloomberg as VP. Kind of a Statler and Waldorf eternally griping pair, whose social media spats will confuse and distract Trump voters into complacency and staying at home on election day in November.
Scenario 4: Hilary wins the primary in a brokered convention and Trump's head explodes leaving very little to clean up.
Bloomberg would never run for VP.
Trump would probably love to run against Hillary again
But those are silly scenarios.
Biden-Amy is a possibility.
How do you figure?