Democrats 2020

[Toni]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kentuckians-have-finally-had-about-enough-of-mitch-mcconnell
....
What’s the print version of Donald Trump being booed at the World Series?
The poll showing that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the president’s most stolid defender, is down to a 18 percent job approval rating in Kentucky. Only 37 percent in the Public Policy Poll said they would vote for him again next year.
....


It would be so sweet to see this PoS swept out of office come 2020.

An American friend who now makes Perth his hown tells me that all past Presidents including Obama and our own Australian PM who happened to be at the World Series one year are traditionally booed. It doesn't mean a thing despite the left media making it a big deal!

Your friend is not correct, although Clinton was booed at a NASCAR event and Obama was booed in St. Louis at an All Stars game, but that was probably for wearing a White Sox jacket in St. Louis. George W. was booed at a 2008 game where he threw out the first pitch. We all know what happened in 2008.

 

[southernhybrid]

Will the swing voters determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Apparently a lot of people think so.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/upshot/swing-voters-2020-election.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Today’s America is so deeply polarized that it can be hard to imagine there are people who are really not sure whether they want to vote for President Trump or his Democratic rival.

But these “mythic,” “quasi-talismanic,” “unicorn” swing voters are very real, and there are enough of them to decide the next presidential election.

They are similar in holding ideologically inconsistent views, but they otherwise span all walks of life, based on an analysis of 569 respondents to recent New York Times Upshot/Siena College surveys in the six closest states carried by the president in the 2016 presidential election.

These voters represent 15 percent of the electorate in the battleground states, and they say there’s a chance they’ll vote for either Mr. Trump or the Democrat.

I've decided that these swing voters must not be paying much attention to what's going on in the country. How else is it possible to be so undecided about the next election? You either understand that Trump has abused his power in many different ways, or you don't. If you don't and you. think he's doing a great job, then why would. you be undecided? If you do, why would you support such a corrupt, inept person?

The size of that persuadable pool depends on how they are defined. Although there is reason to think some voters have more of a partisan lean than they realize, let’s call the 15 percent who are still thinking of voting for Mr. Trump or a Democrat the potentially persuadable.

As a group they are 57 percent male and 72 percent white, and 35 percent have college degrees. Most, 69 percent, say they usually vote for a mix of both Democratic and Republican candidates. Among those who voted in 2016, 48 percent say they voted for Mr. Trump, 33 percent for Hillary Clinton, and 19 percent for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or no one. Those who voted in the midterm election voted for the Republican congressional candidate by one point.

Looking at the full pool of potential persuadables, it can be hard to glean any clear insights. But individual demographic groups present a clearer picture of voters pulled in different directions by their ideology, identity, self-interest or attitudes about the president.

The white college-educated persuadable voters, in either the broad or narrow definition, have something in common: They may not love the president, but they are not sold on progressives.

They oppose single-payer health care, 60 percent to 37 percent, and oppose free college, 55 to 41.

They disapprove of the president, but only 32 percent disapprove of both his performance and his policies.

Steven Basart, 28, is getting his Ph.D in computer science and describes himself as a Democrat. Yet he would consider voting for Mr. Trump, depending on the Democratic nominee.

If it were Ms. Warren, he’d vote Republican, he said: “I think she’s going too far to the left, which would take our country in a bad direction.”

Mr. Basart is not a fan of Mr. Trump’s personality, but he says it’s overshadowing some of his accomplishments.

“There are plenty of things not to like about Trump, because he says things that are not nice and potentially racist,” said Mr. Basart, who is Latino. “I care somewhat about those things, but I mostly just care about policies, because at the end of the day, that’s what affects people.”

Are these so called swing voters the ones who will actually determine the election results. It's both fascinating and disturbing to me, but if you live in a swing state that's needed for either candidate to win, it does seem like your vote is much more powerful than those who live in a very blue or very red state. Anyone have an opinion on this? I'm still trying to figure out which accomplishments Mr. Basart ( in the last quote ) is thinking of when he mentions Trump.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are these so called swing voters the ones who will actually determine the election results. It's both fascinating and disturbing to me, but if you live in a swing state that's needed for either candidate to win, it does seem like your vote is much more powerful than those who live in a very blue or very red state. Anyone have an opinion on this? I'm still trying to figure out which accomplishments Mr. Basart ( in the last quote ) is thinking of when he mentions Trump.

They are impossible to predict because they have no coherent ideology, so there's no point in trying to capture their votes. Which neatly explains the fact that every time the DNC has tried to chase them, they have lost. Republicans don't care about swing voters, and they have gradually taken over local, state, and federal governments across the country, and the longer it takes for the opposition to realize that, the more judicial positions will be lost to far-right extremism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are these so called swing voters the ones who will actually determine the election results. It's both fascinating and disturbing to me, but if you live in a swing state that's needed for either candidate to win, it does seem like your vote is much more powerful than those who live in a very blue or very red state. Anyone have an opinion on this? I'm still trying to figure out which accomplishments Mr. Basart ( in the last quote ) is thinking of when he mentions Trump.

This is a very common passive aggressive Trump supporter line.

'Oh he says things he shouldn't, but golly if he hasn't accomplished things.'
Such as?
*crickets*

 

[PyramidHead]

Hillary Clinton urges Democrats to pick a candidate who can win the Electoral College

She finally figured it out.

 

[Trausti]

Sleepy Joe it is!

 

[Politesse]

No offense, but... I'm not sure she's an expert on that?

 

[Derec]

No offense, but... I'm not sure she's an expert on that?

Looks like she recognizes the mistake she made in 2016 that cost her the election.

 

[Derec]

'Oh he says things he shouldn't, but golly if he hasn't accomplished things.'
Such as?
*crickets*

You may not like what he accomplished, but to pretend that the tax law, travel ban, 2 SCOTUS justices, etc. is "crickets" is disingenuous.
Also, this is about Democrats 2020, not Trump.

 

[Derec]

They are impossible to predict because they have no coherent ideology,

There is nothing incoherent in holding different positions of different issues even if the positions do not align with the positions major parties settled on. One could even argue that some positions of political parties are incoherent. For example, support for individual rights to decide who to marry on one hand, but also supporting race-based college admissions, which is collecitivist in that it reduces individuals to interchangeable ciphers for racial and gender groups.

so there's no point in trying to capture their votes.

Of course there is a point to that, as long as you actually want to win elections.

Which neatly explains the fact that every time the DNC has tried to chase them, they have lost.

Major league bullshit! When Dems have chased swing voters, like under Clinton and Obama, they have won. When they decided to emphasize ideological purity, say with McGovern, they lost big.

Republicans don't care about swing voters, and they have gradually taken over local, state, and federal governments across the country, and the longer it takes for the opposition to realize that, the more judicial positions will be lost to far-right extremism.

I disagree. Republicans are skillful in getting the votes of people who may support part of their agenda, but who are turned off by contemporary Democrats. Many working class people are turned off by things like reparations, de-facto open borders (abolish ICE, "no human is illegal", sanctuary cities), anti-police attitude (eg, AOC supports "fuck the police" protests in NYC that are done to support fare evaders) etc. Democrats will not be successful in playing even harder to their base because that support is already saturated.

 

[PyramidHead]

For the pundit-brains among us (NYT):



Election is still a year out, but Warren's looking like a tough sell here.

 

[Derec]

Will the swing voters determine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Apparently a lot of people think so.

I think that is obvious. I think of swing voters as those voters either not bound or loosely bound to a political party. They may agree with Republicans on some issues, Democrats on others, and neither on the rest. Note that last election was won and lost on a relatively few number of votes. Even a small swing can change defeat into victory.

I've decided that these swing voters must not be paying much attention to what's going on in the country.

Those who do not pay attention are more likely to be either committed non-voters or else automatic D or R straight ticket voters because that's what they have always done.
Evaluating candidates anew each cycle does not strike me as not paying attention - quite the opposite!

How else is it possible to be so undecided about the next election?

Because things are still in flux. It makes a difference who the nominee is. In case of septuagenarian nominees, choice of Veep matters more than usual.
Hell, with impeachment it is not even clear who the Republican nominee will be in 2020!
So unless you are a die-hard D or R, why should you not leave your options open as to whom you will vote for?

You either understand that Trump has abused his power in many different ways, or you don't. If you don't and you. think he's doing a great job, then why would. you be undecided? If you do, why would you support such a corrupt, inept person?

Well some people may like at least some of the things Trump did. They also may be scared of some of the things Dems have proposed so far. Like decriminalizing illegal immigration, or giving reparations to black people.

If it were Ms. Warren, he’d vote Republican, he said: “I think she’s going too far to the left, which would take our country in a bad direction.”

This will be a BIG problem for Democrats if they nominate Warren.

Are these so called swing voters the ones who will actually determine the election results. It's both fascinating and disturbing to me, but if you live in a swing state that's needed for either candidate to win, it does seem like your vote is much more powerful than those who live in a very blue or very red state. Anyone have an opinion on this?

It is the best argument for the national popular vote. EC doesn't protect small states against big states, but favors purple states over either blue or red ones, regardless of size. Florida matters, Wyoming does not.

I'm still trying to figure out which accomplishments Mr. Basart ( in the last quote ) is thinking of when he mentions Trump.

He is pursuing a PhD in computer science, so I am guessing it probably has to do with taxes.

 

[Derec]

From NYT:

When an audience member asked about conditions in Gaza...Buttigieg began responding in Arabic.

The overwhelmingly white audience, largely unaware of what he said, broke into raucous applause.

The author doesn't even relate WHAT, exactly, Mayor Pete said about Gaza.

 

[TV and credit cards]

From NYT:

When an audience member asked about conditions in Gaza...Buttigieg began responding in Arabic.

The overwhelmingly white audience, largely unaware of what he said, broke into raucous applause.

The author doesn't even relate WHAT, exactly, Mayor Pete said about Gaza.

Likely, not important. Reading on in the story, the point is people are impressed with his educational background and intellect for a man of his age.

It was a wise move for Buttigieg to lay claim to the unity platform. While Warren and Sanders beat themselves up for rights to the left edge combating not only Trump but the entire GOP ideology, Buttigieg is battling just Trump as his polar opposite by being inclusive and intelligent.
His real test will be in making inroads with the black vote.

Obiden is just riding along on name recognition. Yeah, you will beat Trump like a drum, for no other reason than everyone who doesn't pay attention to politics knows your name.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For the pundit-brains among us (NYT):

Election is still a year out, but Warren's looking like a tough sell here.

Warren has a very good chance of getting the nomination because she's basically "Biden acting like Sanders" plus "vagina". That Trump would destroy her in the first debate is inconsequential.

Biden and Bernie are both old white men with health issues. If either of them get the nomination it will be Biden because he basically coasts into it without big gaffes getting in the way. One of the reasons he's still leading is because the "not-Biden" vote is still pretty well split.

One of the ways I know that the Republican party doesn't manipulate the voting as much as the Democratic party does is that if they did then Trump wouldn't have gotten the nomination in 2016. They'd have given it to Jeb the way the Democratic party gave it to Hillary.

 

[ZiprHead]

For the pundit-brains among us (NYT):

Election is still a year out, but Warren's looking like a tough sell here.

Warren has a very good chance of getting the nomination because she's basically "Biden acting like Sanders" plus "vagina". That Trump would destroy her in the first debate is inconsequential.

Biden and Bernie are both old white men with health issues. If either of them get the nomination it will be Biden because he basically coasts into it without big gaffes getting in the way. One of the reasons he's still leading is because the "not-Biden" vote is still pretty well split.

One of the ways I know that the Republican party doesn't manipulate the voting as much as the Democratic party does is that if they did then Trump wouldn't have gotten the nomination in 2016. They'd have given it to Jeb the way the Democratic party gave it to Hillary.

Trump has yet to destroy anyone in a debate. What makes you think he'd start now?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Live political debates aren't won by facts, they are won by presentation and sound bites.

Just watch the current Democratic Party primary debates and you will see examples of this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Live political debates aren't won by facts, they are won by presentation and sound bites.

Just watch the current Democratic Party primary debates and you will see examples of this.

But Trump has such a limited quiver. By the time he's on stage with anyone he'll have already telegraphed his best lines, standard insults and name calling.
Everyone's had 4 years to predict and plan adaptively. Whethervvthey go toe to toe or treat him like a heckler, yhere's no reason to be caught by surprise by Trump.

 

[lpetrich]

Commentary: Buttigieg, please don’t equate religion with morality - The Salt Lake Tribune

That Buttigieg is a Christian doesn’t concern me. But he’s not just a Christian; he also publicly advocates a reemergence of a “religious left.” He argues that Democrats should not be afraid to use religious traditions “as a way of calling us to higher values.” As he told Bill Maher, “When I go to church, what I hear a lot about is protecting the downtrodden, and standing up for the immigrant and being skeptical of authority sometimes and making sure you look after the poor and the prisoner.”

He told The Washington Post that he wants to “remind people of faith why the same things that are being preached on Sunday apply to the policies that we’re making on Monday morning.” In other words, use religion as a tool for political persuasion.

Thus proposing the emergence of a Religious Left. But that will lead to dueling scriptures, both sides waving the Bible at each other and explaining away everything that does not support their position.

He’s not saying those values — compassion, justice, humility — are higher than the traditions themselves. But they are. Because those religious traditions also include the “values” of exclusion, patriarchy and tribalism. And, yes, even the “value” of homophobia.

Pete Buttigieg wants you to know he hates religious conservatives

Disdain for the Religious Right is central to Buttigieg’s primary campaign. It’s not merely political icons such as Vice President Mike Pence that he’s targeting. His campaign is also attacking ordinary people who believe in God, go to church, and adhere to traditional moral teachings in their own affairs.

Pete Buttigieg to Mike Pence: 'Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator' - CNNPolitics
PB reportedly goes to a liturgically conservative Episcopal church.

Before an Austin crowd recently, for instance, Buttigieg lamented the state of the world today, in which “so-called religious freedom is used to harm people,” as Buttigieg put it. Then he added his punchline, decrying that current law makes “it lawful to harm people so long as you remember to use your religion as an excuse.”

Laughter and applause rained down from the balconies.

 

[Politesse]

Part of the problem with national debates is that a significant portion of the population gets very angry whenever they see men shamed or embarrassed by women. So female politicians are damned if they do, damned if they don't.