2020 US Election (Part One)

[innonimatu]

The best VP pick for Sanders is obvious: Tulsi Gabbard. Good insurance policy against an untimely death. And able to capture many "conservative" votes that otherwise would go to Trump -ironically, from voters who would hope there might be an untimely death.

I do not particularly like the lady but she's the best asset for Sanders to bring into the election as VP candidate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The best VP pick for Sanders is obvious: Tulsi Gabbard. Good insurance policy against an untimely death. And able to capture many "conservative" votes that otherwise would go to Trump -ironically, from voters who would hope there might be an untimely death.

I do not particularly like the lady but she's the best asset for Sanders to bring into the election as VP candidate.

I don't expect her to appear at the convention with a delegate count that puts him over the top though. That's going to be the first qualifier.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't expect her to appear at the convention with a delegate count that puts him over the top though. That's going to be the first qualifier.

Interesting article in Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story-ans

Bernie might not need anyone else come super Tuesday.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Interesting article in Washington Post.

Bernie might not need anyone else come super Tuesday.

Or he might. I think the "infectious optimism" of his faithful is pretty ridiculous myself. He matches his previous performance in Nevada and overnight goes from "our guy will have a plurality and deserve to win" to "okay, he's gonna have so many delegates that he can light half of them on fire and win going away."

Like I said, if Biden performs as expected on Saturday the news cycle will be right back on his wagon, and the stories of how Super Tuesday is going to put Biden on cruise control will sprout like mushrooms. Nothing is going to really change until either

a) someone has a genuinely unexpected result, one way or the other.

b) someone runs out of money and pulls the plug.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Watching clueless boomers being confused by Bernie's popularity and the ruling class ringing the alarm as their regime of corporate greed and profits is crumbling before their eyes is so incredibly satisfying. And just like philosophers and artists who glorified kings and dictators, the media glorifies the establishment candidates and tries so hard to bring down Bernie that it has the opposite effect on the electorate. Voters aren't stupid, and vilifying them doesn't work—just ask Hillary about her "deplorable" comments.

What a time to be alive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What a time to be alive.

During the Trump administration? Man if this is your idea of good times I really do pity you.

 

[Takhisis]

Or he might. I think the "infectious optimism" of his faithful is pretty ridiculous myself. He matches his previous performance in Nevada and overnight goes from "our guy will have a plurality and deserve to win" to "okay, he's gonna have so many delegates that he can light half of them on fire and win going away."

I am not really sure, but wasn't Sanders already trailing behind Hillary Clinton at the time?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am not really sure, but wasn't Sanders already trailing behind Hillary Clinton at the time?

I don't think so. He won New Hampshire, basically tied Iowa, and came up just short of tying Nevada. If she led it would have been in "too close to call and tiny number of delegates anyway" fashion. There was no actual leader until she swept him in South Carolina.

The bottom line, to me, is that his numbers were down in Iowa, way down in New Hampshire, and just even in Nevada, so the "okay, that's a wrap" crowd are looking at things apparently backwards. If he doesn't pull much improved numbers in SC on Saturday I see no reason to think he goes into Tuesday looking to land a knockout punch. Some of the scavengers get knocked out, but not the contenders.

 

[Arwon]

I am not really sure, but wasn't Sanders already trailing behind Hillary Clinton at the time?

Also there were only two candidates, that's an extremely different dynamic

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also there were only two candidates, that's an extremely different dynamic

Not that different. In New Hampshire in 2016 60% voted for Sanders. This time it was 26%. We can go with "all these candidates, so of course his slice is smaller but he still won." Or we can go with "more than half the people who voted for him in 2016 didn't really want to and when presented with other alternatives they didn't." No matter how you look at it the numbers themselves are data.

 

[Arwon]

More talking about the Nevada result where you tried to hold nearly 50% in a two horse race and nearly 50% in a many horse race as being equivalent.

The folly there is assuming every single person who does not vote for candidate X will support all possible opponents of that candidate and actively hold that one candidate as their absolute least preferred. But preferences do not work that way, even candidates with close ideological links don't get that sort of tight uniform preference flow, and from that sort of large plurality position even if only like 30% of people who voted for someone else prefer Sanders above some other candidates, that starts to add up to a majority pretty quickly.

 

[Zardnaar]

More talking about the Nevada result where you tried to hold nearly 50% in a two horse race and nearly 50% in a many horse race as being equivalent.

The folly there is assuming every single person who does not vote for candidate X will support all possible opponents of that candidate and actively hold that one candidate as their absolute least preferred.But preferences do not work that way, even candidates with close ideological links don't get that sort of tight uniform preference flow, and from that sort of large plurality position even if only like 30% of people prefer Sanders above some other candidates, that starts to add up to a majority pretty quickly.

This Sanders is almost getting more than everyone else put together.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

More talking about the Nevada result where you tried to hold nearly 50% in a two horse race and nearly 50% in a many horse race as being equivalent.

The folly there is assuming every single person who does not vote for candidate X will support all possible opponents of that candidate and actively hold that one candidate as their absolute least preferred. But preferences do not work that way, even candidates with close ideological links don't get that sort of tight uniform preference flow, and from that sort of large plurality position even if only like 30% of people who voted for someone else prefer Sanders above some other candidates, that starts to add up to a majority pretty quickly.

Yeah, that holds up for Nevada. Nevada is a good sign for Sanders. Not the "break out the banners that's it" sign people are making it out, but a good sign. Dropping by more than half in New Hampshire wasn't, no matter how you parse it. Neither was Iowa.

 

[amadeus]

@Arwon is absolutely right and Trump 2016 shows it. Rand Paul was my first choice but I could have easily also supported Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. I don’t think Cruz could have won at that point though.

 

[AdrienIer]

Warren tried to downplay her loss in Nevada by saying the early voting hurt her because it didn't take into account her good debate performance. A national poll by yougov backs that claim : Sanders is first with 28% but Warren is 2nd with 19%. Biden 17, Bloomberg 13. If it holds until super tuesday it's going to change the race a lot

 

[Kyriakos]

Also there were only two candidates, that's an extremely different dynamic

Good luck getting Tim to see this. The concept of second preference is alien to him, so are the polls with Bernie being second preference for Biden or Warren voters. At this rate I doubt he will even if Bernie is having a 20 point lead by ST

 

[amadeus]

I’ll go off here and suggest something a little different to what some people are thinking... does Pete Buttigieg want to win? Of course he wants to win the White House, but let’s take a closer look at how things have played out.

Trump. He’s got experience in the White House and he’s certainly different from any politician at the national level we’ve seen since... when?

Buttigieg. Young. Placed well so far but not far enough to be considered an uncontested frontrunner.

So what are Buttigieg’s options? He can drop out of the race, but his rise has been above expectations in how Joe Biden has been pushed out of the preordained nominee spot. Dropping out now to help the party just makes him look like a quitter.

Or, he can stay in the race and keep splitting the vote and unintentionally cause trouble. Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg aren’t going to make a second try at the White House, especially if one is defeated in November.

And Pete Buttigieg doesn’t want to be the one that goes down, so where does that leave him? If he finishes strong but not first in the primary contests, it shows his party that he’s ready for the national stage in the future.

What’s great for Buttigieg also is that if Sanders loses, Warren also takes the fall because she’ll just be remembered as a less-popular copy.

edited for grammar

 

[hobbsyoyo]

During the Trump administration? Man if this is your idea of good times I really do pity you.

Reminds me of a Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times

 

[Kyriakos]

Reminds me of a Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times

This is the (chinese) year of the Rat.

 

[Socrates99]

This is the (chinese) year of the Rat.

So...Mayor Pete then?