Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[sdk]

Behold the glory of the American electorate!

 

[BillBrasky]

As an American, this is just embarrassing.

If it was a third world election we were monitoring I'd call shenanigans on the whole thing.

 

[Ruairi77]

Behold the glory of the American electorate!

that woman caucusing for Pete does really well there, especially in front of her kid.

 

[Ruairi77]

As an American, this is just embarrassing.

If it was a third world election we were monitoring I'd call shenanigans on the whole thing.

yea, I find it mind blowing how wed to tradition America is.
How about we move GE voting day from a Tuesday to a Saturday - no way, it's always been on tuesday.
How about we look at Celsius or metric - get lost commie
How about we hold all the primaries on the same day - what about tradition
And I really blow minds when I suggest that the senate represent people not land - nobody messes with the senate apparently.

 

[sdk]

that woman caucusing for Pete does really well there, especially in front of her kid.

Her patience and the thoughtfulness with which she chooses her words is admirable and I suspect she's handling the situation much better than I'd be capable of doing.

I just don't get how one's information environment could be such that you could be aware of Buttigieg for months without ever having heard he's gay. I wonder if she was drawn to him chiefly because he's more likely to reference his Christian faith than the other contenders.

 

[BillBrasky]

yea, I find it mind blowing how wed to tradition America is.
How about we move GE voting day from a Tuesday to a Saturday - no way, it's always been on tuesday.
How about we look at Celsius or metric - get lost commie
How about we hold all the primaries on the same day - what about tradition
And I really blow minds when I suggest that the senate represent people not land - nobody messes with the senate apparently.

I'm open to negotiation on all of those except for C v. F. like knowing if it is 65 or 68 outside, and 30 degrees being hot is just weird. Plus the idea of negative temps scare the [Poor language removed] out of me, so I can't go back on that one.

 

[abelard]

Bloomberg rubbing his hands with glee after that mess.
If Sanders gets the nom, expect him to run as a third party candidate.

I mean... he's vain enough that he might try, but it's hard to run promising that 'Only I Can Stop Bernie Sanders' having just in that instance been defeated by Bernie Sanders...

So much of the conversation on politics derives from ill-informed speculation by pundits in Washington, about what imaginary voters whom they will never meet want from politicians. It is often nonsense - as a year's worth of polls showing Biden in the lead has almost certainly just demonstrated.

Americans by and large do not know anything about Michael Bloomberg, and I don't expect they are going to like him much when they find out. He is Hillary Clinton with none of the upside, and his record and character are deplorable (though you might ask yourself why we are reminded so much about the Bernie oppo folder of legend just waiting to be released, and nothing at all about Bloomberg). He is not in any sense a good or interesting candidate, but instead, David Brooks' idea of what some non-college educated suburbanite in Iowa allegedly wants in a candidate.

If he wins the Democratic ticket, Trump will destroy him. He embodies everything that Trump converts voted to reject.

And if he does run as an independent (having by definition already failed as a Democrat) he'll probably shave a negligible amount from the Virginia suburbs on both sides, and make no real impact, because both Red and Blue are well aware that modern tribal politics is a kill-or-be-killed zero-sum affair.

Anyhow...

Political commenters (and people who follow them a little too uncritically) tend to see politics on a strict and orderly spectrum, left to right, with 'moderate' voters in the geometric centre - which is to say, deterred by either party's extremes.

But actual moderate voters are not so binary - they hold all manner of simultaneous, contradictory ideas and emotions, and are at this point far less informed about politics than people who identify with parties or discuss it online. People journalists and pollsters they are 'moderate' or 'in the centre' because it flatters their sense of holding common-sense judgement. But actual 'moderate' voters are likely to support Obama, Trump AND Bernie, or Medicare for All, bipartisanship AND a border wall - though such a creature cannot mathematically exist according to the television or the Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar campaigns.

The amount of people who are a) politically aware enough to place themselves on a spectrum and b) actually believe that right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans have the best economic and cultural ideas is vanishingly small - it's just that they're the only people allowed to comment about politics on cable news.

As a result, most mainstream analysis of politics is obsessive fussing over imaginary voters at the exact geometrical centre between the two parties, but who increasingly do not exist.

And this is the entire basis for Bloomberg thus far - nobody actually likes him, but they're certain the imaginary 'moderate' does.

Edit:

Behold the glory of the American electorate!

As I was just saying......
lol

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I mean... he's vain enough that he might try, but it's hard to run promising that 'Only I Can Stop Bernie Sanders' having just in that instance been defeated by Bernie Sanders...

So much of the conversation on politics derives from ill-informed speculation by pundits in Washington, about what imaginary voters whom they will never meet want from politicians. It is often nonsense - as a year's worth of polls showing Biden in the lead has almost certainly just demonstrated.

Americans by and large do not know anything about Michael Bloomberg, and I don't expect they are going to like him much when they find out. He is Hillary Clinton with none of the upside, and his record and character are deplorable (though you might ask yourself why we are reminded so much about the Bernie oppo folder of legend just waiting to be released, and nothing at all about Bloomberg). He is not in any sense a good or interesting candidate, but instead, David Brooks' idea of what some non-college educated suburbanite in Iowa allegedly wants in a candidate.

If he wins the Democratic ticket, Trump will destroy him. He embodies everything that Trump converts voted to reject.

And if he does run as an independent (having by definition already failed as a Democrat) he'll probably shave a negligible amount from the Virginia suburbs on both sides, and make no real impact, because both Red and Blue are well aware that modern tribal politics is a kill-or-be-killed zero-sum affair.

Anyhow...

Political commenters (and people who follow them a little too uncritically) tend to see politics on a strict and orderly spectrum, left to right, with 'moderate' voters in the geometric centre - which is to say, deterred by either party's extremes.

But actual moderate voters are not so binary - they hold all manner of simultaneous, contradictory ideas and emotions, and are at this point far less informed about politics than people who identify with parties or discuss it online. People journalists and pollsters they are 'moderate' or 'in the centre' because it flatters their sense of holding common-sense judgement. But actual 'moderate' voters are likely to support Obama, Trump AND Bernie, or Medicare for All, bipartisanship AND a border wall - though such a creature cannot mathematically exist according to the television or the Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar campaigns.

The amount of people who are a) politically aware enough to place themselves on a spectrum and b) actually believe that right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans have the best economic and cultural ideas is vanishingly small - it's just that they're the only people allowed to comment about politics on cable news.

As a result, most mainstream analysis of politics is obsessive fussing over imaginary voters at the exact geometrical centre between the two parties, but who increasingly do not exist.

And this is the entire basis for Bloomberg thus far - nobody actually likes him, but they're certain the imaginary 'moderate' does.

Edit:


As I was just saying......
lol

I"m not so sure about this. Bloomberg actually represents everything that Trump wishes that he, in fact, was. And he will absolutely melt down over it. Bloomberg is a "successful New York businessman" that is actually beyond filthy rich. Trump's head will explode, and Bloomberg has been calling him on it, to some effect.

 

[Ruairi77]

I"m not so sure about this. Bloomberg actually represents everything that Trump wishes that he, in fact, was. And he will absolutely melt down over it. Bloomberg is a "successful New York businessman" that is actually beyond filthy rich. Trump's head will explode, and Bloomberg has been calling him on it, to some effect.

yea, I think Bloomberg is the only candidate that can get under Trumps skin. None of the other dem candidates could take on Trump at his own game and do anywhere near as well as Bloomberg.
That said, the idea of buying the election is at the core of what's wrong with the system.

 

[canuckblue]

The DNC has not spent the past four years trying to undermine him because they think he will lose, but because they are afraid he will win.

I'm a bit confused on this. Why would the DNC be afraid of Sanders winning? Do they think he can't beat Trump?

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Behold the glory of the American electorate!

"What I'd say to you, Ma'am, is do you get this upset about people eating shellfish?"

 

[abelard]

I"m not so sure about this. Bloomberg actually represents everything that Trump wishes that he, in fact, was. And he will absolutely melt down over it. Bloomberg is a "successful New York businessman" that is actually beyond filthy rich. Trump's head will explode, and Bloomberg has been calling him on it, to some effect.

yea, I think Bloomberg is the only candidate that can get under Trumps skin. None of the other dem candidates could take on Trump at his own game and do anywhere near as well as Bloomberg.
That said, the idea of buying the election is at the core of what's wrong with the system.

Respectfully, I just don't buy that. It makes Trump sound like a video game boss, who is invincible until you utter the secret spell or try the Pegasus Boots and then he immediately explodes and goes away forever. He has melted down on television more times than anybody can remember, and it doesn't matter. The emotional connection with his supporters runs much deeper than that.

It happened in Toronto, while I was growing up there. A certain type of fiercely proud, resentful, downwardly mobile priced-out non-college voter came to viscerally identify with Rob Ford. Ford was owned and humiliated regularly by the smartest, wealthiest and best-mannered that Toronto patricians had to offer - and it had no effect. He looked like these voters, he spoke like these voters, and he threw tantrums like these voters - or at least, like they wished they could, as the city centre elites steadily chipped away at the things in their lives they still felt in control over. When Ford was humiliated, his supporters remembered all the times they had been humiliated. And when he was mocked and scorned, they felt mocked and scorned. He was their champion. It only strengthened the bond.

So is somebody who voted for Trump, after all this time, really going to turn on him now because he's been outwitted once again on television? Especially if the man doing the outwitting (ie Bloomberg) looks and sounds exactly like the boss who shows up late in a fancy sports car, can't remember their name, and cuts short their holiday? It's not competitive high-school debating, and it doesn't work like that. This is why, although he is one of the smartest posters, I don't agree with @tsubaki that Kamala Harris wiping the floor with him on television would have any impact either. Nobody can beat Trump 'at his own game', and nobody should try. You have to give people a different, better offer.

Stephen Bush, one of Britain's last remaining political journalists has said recently that to get people to switch parties, you have to offer them a story that doesn't demand they repudiate their previous choices, and I think he's right. Sanders can do this. He can tell people, "You were right to distrust the establishment in 2016, but Trump has broken his promises. He has weakened your social security, and done nothing to help with your healthcare bills. He's sold you out. Let me fight the elites for you instead, like I've been doing my entire life." The fact that he is not really a Democrat is a feature, not a bug. The Party elders know this, and if they sincerely prioritised winning swing voters, they would embrace it. But... the price of Sanders in office is one they will never pay.

Can anyone else offer Trump voters a coherent narrative that allows them to rationalise leaving Trump? I doubt it. And least of all, surely, is Bloomberg.

If voters know anything at all about him it is that he tried to take away their sodas. Imagine working all day for a sneering, distant prick who reminds you of Bloomberg, then coming home and he's trying to take the Pepsi out of your fridge. Or being unemployed and feeling shitty about it, and now the billionaire New Yorker is sneering at your drink selections too. How does that feel? Trump will hone in on this immediately, in terms that resonate: "Look at this rich prick who turns up late thinking he can jump the queue and buy the election - and the Democrats just let him! And then they claim they're fighting for you?"

And then, there are his many obvious and disqualifying flaws (though we might consider why we'll have to wait for the Republicans to take their turn before we'll hear them).

First, he has no base. None. And horrendous liabilities. The champion of Stop and Frisk? Expect even less Black support than Buttigieg (if this is even possible), after an election where indifferent African-American turnout alone was enough to put Trump in the Oval Office. Dozens of credible accounts from women subject to bullying and harassment at the family firm? #MeToo. To say nothing of the permanent disaffection of an entire generation of Bernie supporters - if not the break-up of the Party altogether - should the DNC continue not even bothering to be subtle about it. Though we're only meant to use it when courting rich white suburbanites, 'electibility' is a sword that cuts both ways.

Anyhow... the Party elders of course understand all of this, and the fact they're already embarrassing themselves to accommodate him in the debate is yet another suggestion that their end game, even more than defeating Trump, is defeating Sanders.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

It depends on the candidate, how they won, and where I lived, and events between then and now, but in many instances I would probably vote Democrat.

Thanks for the answer. To be a bit more specific.... If the election was to be held tomorrow, and the nominee was Biden, how would you vote?

I'll add a second question... this one just out of my own curiosity... Do you actually listen to Pod Save America? You made a comment the other day that I found really odd and I was just wondering if it was throwaway, or based actual knowledge. I only ask that because they've been pretty much nothing but complimentary about Bernie and his operation, while they've been hardest/most critical (out of all the candidates) on Biden, his performances and his operation. Oh actually, I guess maybe they've been harder on Tulsi Gabbard but that's... pretty understandable.

 

[Ruairi77]

Respectfully, I just don't buy that. It makes Trump sound like a video game boss, who is invincible until you utter the secret spell or try the Pegasus Boots and then he immediately explodes and goes away forever. He has melted down on television more times than anybody can remember, and it doesn't matter. The emotional connection with his supporters runs much deeper than that.

It happened in Toronto, while I was growing up there. A certain type of fiercely proud, resentful, downwardly mobile priced-out non-college voter came to viscerally identify with Rob Ford. Ford was owned and humiliated regularly by the smartest, wealthiest and best-mannered that Toronto patricians had to offer - and it had no effect. He looked like these voters, he spoke like these voters, and he threw tantrums like these voters - or at least, like they wished they could, as the city centre elites steadily chipped away at the things in their lives they still felt in control over. When Ford was humiliated, his supporters remembered all the times they had been humiliated. And when he was mocked and scorned, they felt mocked and scorned. He was their champion. It only strengthened the bond.

So is somebody who voted for Trump, after all this time, really going to turn on him now because he's been outwitted once again on television? Especially if the man doing the outwitting (ie Bloomberg) looks and sounds exactly like the boss who shows up late in a fancy sports car, can't remember their name, and cuts short their holiday? It's not competitive high-school debating, and it doesn't work like that. This is why, although he is one of the smartest posters, I don't agree with @tsubaki that Kamala Harris wiping the floor with him on television would have any impact either. Nobody can beat Trump 'at his own game', and nobody should try. You have to give people a different, better offer.

Stephen Bush, one of Britain's last remaining political journalists has said recently that to get people to switch parties, you have to offer them a story that doesn't demand they repudiate their previous choices, and I think he's right. Sanders can do this. He can tell people, "You were right to distrust the establishment in 2016, but Trump has broken his promises. He has weakened your social security, and done nothing to help with your healthcare bills. He's sold you out. Let me fight the elites for you instead, like I've been doing my entire life." The fact that he is not really a Democrat is a feature, not a bug. The Party elders know this, and if they sincerely prioritised winning swing voters, they would embrace it. But... the price of Sanders in office is one they will never pay.

Can anyone else offer Trump voters a coherent narrative that allows them to rationalise leaving Trump? I doubt it. And least of all, surely, is Bloomberg.

If voters know anything at all about him it is that he tried to take away their sodas. Imagine working all day for a sneering, distant prick who reminds you of Bloomberg, then coming home and he's trying to take the Pepsi out of your fridge. Or being unemployed and feeling shitty about it, and now the billionaire New Yorker is sneering at your drink selections too. How does that feel? Trump will hone in on this immediately, in terms that resonate: "Look at this rich prick who turns up late thinking he can jump the queue and buy the election - and the Democrats just let him! And then they claim they're fighting for you?"

And then, there are his many obvious and disqualifying flaws (though we might consider why we'll have to wait for the Republicans to take their turn before we'll hear them).

First, he has no base. None. And horrendous liabilities. The champion of Stop and Frisk? Expect even less Black support than Buttigieg (if this is even possible), after an election where indifferent African-American turnout alone was enough to put Trump in the Oval Office. Dozens of credible accounts from women subject to bullying and harassment at the family firm? #MeToo. To say nothing of the permanent disaffection of an entire generation of Bernie supporters - if not the break-up of the Party altogether - should the DNC continue not even bothering to be subtle about it. Though we're only meant to use it when courting rich white suburbanites, 'electibility' is a sword that cuts both ways.

Anyhow... the Party elders of course understand all of this, and the fact they're already embarrassing themselves to accommodate him in the debate is yet another suggestion that their end game, even more than defeating Trump, is defeating Sanders.

I'm not for one minute saying I'd vote for Bloomberg or saying that it's a good idea for him to run as an independent.
Also Sanders seems to be 100% calling on voters to repudiate their previous decisions.
The low turnout in Iowa last night should be concerning to everyone.
There doesn't seem to be the swell in numbers that dems and particularly Sanders will depend on.
That said, I've no idea who can beat Trump and how so I'm just going to vote for the candidate that appeals most to me and hope that she can convince people to vote not for their 401k but for the decency of America.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm a bit confused on this. Why would the DNC be afraid of Sanders winning? Do they think he can't beat Trump?

Because of what a Sanders win represents - a loss of control over "their" party. Don't forget these are people who in the main rely upon for a living and define themselves by their politics, so having someone from outside coming in and challenging that position is much more of an issue to them than Trump (or any GOP candidate) winning an election. They survived 2016, but a lot of them think that they wouldn't survive losing control of the party.

Of course the horrible truth is that they are so bad that they really need removing - I mean, who on earth would come out of 2016 with all its talk of hacking and political interference, have three years now of talk of hacking and political interference and then in one of its most significant primaries of the year rely on a brand new app to collect and verify the data?