Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[Ruairi77]

No offence (I guess I will have to start every post here like that from now on...)

well, only if you mean it like...
So I guess Sanders isn't the only choice then?

Congratulations on knowing some people in Boston. Gold star for you!

 

[abelard]

well, only if you mean it like...
So I guess Sanders isn't the only choice then?

I expect I'll be quoting myself back to you just about every week until the election, assuming it hasn't become too tiresome even for me by then ; )

Congratulations on knowing some people in Boston. Gold star for you!

Yup. Now an officially qualified authority on American politics on an Everton football forum. Wait 'till you hear who my friends in Boston say they're gonna vote for. It will change everything.

 

[Ruairi77]

I expect I'll be quoting myself back to you just about every week until the election, assuming it hasn't become too tiresome even for me by then ; )



Yup. Now an officially qualified authority on American politics on an Everton football forum. Wait 'till you hear who my friends in Boston say they're gonna vote for. It will change everything.

well, it's just that you said Sanders was the only choice,
then it was Sanders and Warren.
Who are your friends in Boston voting for?

 

[abelard]

You come across like a teacher?

I'm glad I didn't go to school where you did!

 

[SteveSC]

I'm glad I didn't go to school where you did!

Oh look an insult typical. I was asking a genuine question. You decided to turn it into a slagging match.

It's 2019 and you are using an insult like that. Pathetic.

Stay classy.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I am not commenting on 'altruism', I am commenting on the balance of power, my assessment of which you yourself acknowledged was accurate.

I..... did...?

 

[abelard]

Oh look an insult typical. I was asking a genuine question. You decided to turn it into a slagging match.

It's 2019 and you are using an insult like that. Pathetic.

Stay classy.

Um..... Steve? It's self-deprecating.

Merciful heavens.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Aww. To be fair your bickering me with is probably 10 times more a waste of your valuable time!

Possibly... though it takes a LOT less time than that site

 

[LinekersLegs]

"'I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.'"

No offence (I guess I will have to start every post here like that from now on...) but as unreliable as polls have been of late, and as worthless as they are at this stage of the campaign, they are nonetheless more valuable by a factor of ninety-nine kabillion-zillion-trillionty than you, Steve, and what your friends in Boston tell you they plan to do in 12 months' time.

I lived in the US for eleven years, and might well know as many people in Boston as you do, for all that's worth.

I’ll have you know my friends have correctly called the last 3 Democratic primary elections of course they will this one

But slightly more seriously, whilst I agree with you that anecdotal evidence is notoriously prone to small sample size and has inherent regional/demographic etc bias I do think can be an interesting jump off point to build a working hypothesis that you then test with wider data like poll results, fundraising amounts, media coverage etc.

It all largely guesswork anyway at this point so as long as you are careful about confirmation bias and are open to hearing different viewpoints/data I don’t really see any harm in it tbh.

So far my first working hypothesis is that older women, particularly those of colour, were the demographic that won Clinton the primary last time and, barring a huge change from typical primary turnout figures, they are the key block to watch this time, especially once we are past the predominately white early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

My other hypothesis is that “can beat Trump” will be a more motivating factor than the policies/ideology for the majority of primary voters.

But both of these are very provisional and I enjoy reading countervailing takes!

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Hopefully this is the end of his quasi campaign

 

[abelard]

Campaign Slogans! Add your own...

Biden 2020:
Make 'Make America Great Again' Great Again!

Weld 2020:
Make Text Subtext Again!

Klobuchar 2020:
Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves!

Buttigieg 2020:
Credit Card Debt? Student Loans? Rent Too Damn High? Can't Afford Your Obamacare Premiums?
Wait Until You See How High My S.A.T. Scores Were!
Attendez Ae Voir à Quel Point Mes S.A.T. Scores Étaient!
¡Espera Hasta Que Veas Qué Tan Alto Es Mi S.A.T. Las Puntuaciones Fueron!
Vent Til Du Ser Hvor Høy Min S.A.T. Scores Var
Stenna Sakemm Tara Kif Għoli S.A.T. Tiegħi Punteġġi Kieng
تر هغه مهاله چې تاسو وګورئ زما د لوړ رتبه ای ایس ای. شمیرې
ਇੰਤਜਾਰ ਕਰੋ ਜਦੋਂ ਤੱਕ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਮੇਰੀ ਐਸ.ਏ.ਟੀ. ਸਕੋਰ ਬਣ ਗਏ

Beto 2020:
Together, I Can Make 'Fetch' Happen!

 

[abelard]

I’ll have you know my friends have correctly called the last 3 Democratic primary elections of course they will this one

But slightly more seriously, whilst I agree with you that anecdotal evidence is notoriously prone to small sample size and has inherent regional/demographic etc bias I do think can be an interesting jump off point to build a working hypothesis that you then test with wider data like poll results, fundraising amounts, media coverage etc.

It all largely guesswork anyway at this point so as long as you are careful about confirmation bias and are open to hearing different viewpoints/data I don’t really see any harm in it tbh.

So far my first working hypothesis is that older women, particularly those of colour, were the demographic that won Clinton the primary last time and, barring a huge change from typical primary turnout figures, they are the key block to watch this time, especially once we are past the predominately white early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

My other hypothesis is that “can beat Trump” will be a more motivating factor than the policies/ideology for the majority of primary voters.

But both of these are very provisional and I enjoy reading countervailing takes!

Yes, Sanders lost in 2016 because he was obliterated in every Southern state.

This was in part because of the Clintons' mysterious esteem and seemingly unwarranted support from older African-African American voters, and in part because the Sanders campaign in no way expected to do so well, and was assembled more or less on the fly, especially in the South.

I think he will perform a bit better there this time, because his team is now far more professional and prepared, and has years of grassroots organisation to draw upon.

And, Sanders really does appeal to younger African-American and Hispanic voters, in a way that the media is reluctant to acknowledge - though as always, mobilising turnout will be critical.

I expect the Southern vote to split three ways this time, between Sanders, Biden, and Harris.

The interesting question will be whether this becomes a two-way race or a three-way race - in other words, to what extent Biden's support holds.

Biden is gaffe prone, a weak debater, and utterly empty on policy; in general, the more people know about him the less they like him.

Meanwhile, Sanders' initial position is strong enough that he can mostly set Biden aside, focusing on Trump and running an otherwise positive campaign.

Conversely, the more uncommitted voters know about him - which is to say, the more encounter him directly, rather than via hostile media curation - the more they like him.

The others, on the other hand, will need to go after Biden with all guns blazing if they are to make any sort of mark.

They clearly all think Biden is there for the taking though, or there would not be so many of them.

I still think that if Harris can win enough African-American voters, this combined with her visual and narrative appeal to self-righteous well-educated posh 'wokeness obligé' white liberals makes her a strong potential candidate to emerge between Sanders and Biden.

On the other hand, if Biden's support among uninformed and/or demented boomers holds, the question then becomes: which way do the others go?

The Party hierarchy will attempt to put the Fear of God into anyone tempted to back Sanders (just like they did by immediately blacklisting anyone attempting to foster the next AOC).

But even then, I suspect it will be clear to the candidates if not the DCCC brass that in the long run, Biden is not a smart bet.

Sanders voters' time may not arrive quite yet, but the writing is the wall; it is difficult to see how the vaguely progressive image that milquetoast corporate mascots like O'Rourke, Buttigieg, Harris or Gillibrand aspire for could survive association with a handsy warmongering racist corporate errand-boy like Biden. Stacy Abrams, for instance, wasted little time nipping the prospect of having her photo taken next to him in the bud.

I think you're right about the importance of beating Trump, but only to an extent.

This matters far more to older voters than it does to their children - much of the evil-orange-man-did-another-stupid #resistance is fuelled by comfortable suburban boomers with medicare, pensions, and paid-off mortgages, and lacking a built-up tolerance to social media hysteria (akin to how alcohol proved especially devastating when introduced to previously unexposed Native American communities hundreds of years ago).

But for younger people and anyone outside posh suburbs or the coasts, underemployment, mountains of debt, and bleak prospects all make winding the clock back to 3 November 2016 and pretending like nothing ever happened a distinctly unappealing option.

For these voters, Beat Trump is necessary, but not sufficient.

Beat Trump also begs the question: how best to do it? Was America Already Great, or are transformative changes required?

I know what my answer is, but I am not so sure the Democratic Party does... ; )

 

[Prevenger17]

Yes, Sanders lost in 2016 because he was obliterated in every Southern state.

This was in part because of the Clintons' mysterious esteem and seemingly unwarranted support from older African-African American voters, and in part because the Sanders campaign in no way expected to do so well, and was assembled more or less on the fly, especially in the South.

I think he will perform a bit better there this time, because his team is now far more professional and prepared, and has years of grassroots organisation to draw upon.

And, Sanders really does appeal to younger African-American and Hispanic voters, in a way that the media is reluctant to acknowledge - though as always, mobilising turnout will be critical.

I expect the Southern vote to split three ways this time, between Sanders, Biden, and Harris.

The interesting question will be whether this becomes a two-way race or a three-way race - in other words, to what extent Biden's support holds.

Biden is gaffe prone, a weak debater, and utterly empty on policy; in general, the more people know about him the less they like him.

Meanwhile, Sanders' initial position is strong enough that he can mostly set Biden aside, focusing on Trump and running an otherwise positive campaign, whereas the others will need to go after Biden with all guns blazing if they are to make any sort of mark.

They clearly all think Biden is there for the taking though, or there would not be so many of them.

I still think that if Harris can win enough African-American voters, this combined with her visual and narrative appeal to self-righteous 'well-educated posh 'wokeness obligé' white liberals makes her a strong potential candidate to emerge between Sanders and Biden.

On the other hand, if Biden's support among uninformed and/or demented boomers holds, the question then becomes: which way do the others go?

The Party hierarchy will attempt to put the Fear of God into anyone tempted to back Sanders (just like they did by immediately blacklisting anyone attempting to foster the next AOC).

But even then, I suspect it will be clear to the candidates if not the DCCC brass that in the long run, Biden is not a smart bet.

Sanders voters' time may not arrive quite yet, but the writing is the wall; it is difficult to see how the vaguely progressive image that milquetoast corporate mascots like O'Rourke, Buttigieg, Harris or Gillibrand aspire for could survive association with a handsy racist warmongering corporate errand-boy like Biden. Stacy Abrams, for instance, wasted little time nipping the prospect of being photographed next to him in the bud.

I think you're right about the importance of beating Trump, but only to an extent.

This matters far more to older voters than it does to their children - much of the evil-orange-man-did-another-stupid #resistance is fuelled by comfortable suburban boomers with medicare, pensions, and paid-off mortgages, and lacking a built-up tolerance to social media frenzy (in the manner that alcohol proved especially devastating when introduced to previously unexposed Native American communities hundreds of years ago).

But for younger people and anyone outside posh suburbs or the coasts, underemployment, mountains of debt, and bleak prospects all make winding the clock back to 3 November 2016 and pretending like nothing ever happened a distinctly unappealing option.

For these voters, Beat Trump is necessary, but not sufficient.

Beat Trump also begs the question: how best to do it? Was America Already Great, or are transformative changes required?

I know what my answer is, but I am not so sure the Democratic Party does... ; )

Where do you find the time in the day Ab?

 

[abelard]

Where do you find the time in the day Ab?

Almost always when something important but unpleasant is coming due ; )