2020 Democrats

[OgNasty]

Andrew Yang has to be the Bitcoin dream candidate at the moment.

[1713516788]

1713516788

[1713516788]

1713516788

[1713516788]

1713516788

[1713516788]

1713516788

[btcusury]

Advanced analysis of Dem field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvRFKzSQNT8

[Spendulus]

The DNC and legacy media see no choice but to resign themselves to support Sleepy Biden. The socialist camp, now led by Warren after cannibalizing Sanders, will be ignored/censored by the corporate Demonrats, unless Biden can't hang on (like Killary could). They need an Oprah or Michael Obama to have a candidate with any solidity. Trump need do little more than blow wind to knock out the existing ones in a live debate. Short of some odd surprise like Bezos running for prez or something happening to Trump, they need to cheat on a scale never achieved before.

I think this is accurate. The big money corporate interests need to have a front runner who vomits the socialist line for the little victims of oppression, but who actually will be their puppet.

There's no obvious person for that except Biden.

Neither weird, kooky or sincere Socialist qualifies. They all seem to be lying the wrong way.

[gmaxwell]

I'm surprised to see some people here named Kamala Harris as a preference to win.

Harris is a bad egg-- with a history full of overly aggressive prosecution of victimless crimes. Her naked ambition drove her to engage in the most absurd prosecutions just to make a name for herself.  For example, the prosecution of backpage is obviously outrageous even if you view the entire thing through the lense of law enforcement's own claims of what happened.

In her role as prosecutor she abused the states power to the maximum extent possible and treated the rule of law as just a PR game.  And she was effective at it.  There are other candidates who might aspire to such abuses, but for the most part they haven't demonstrated the competence to pull them off.

With Google manipulating the public in her favour her odds of winning might well be pretty good. But I think she has enough of an unsavoury history that enough on the left will not be hard to convince to stay home to let trump take the reelection. In spite of the sound and fury in the media, many Americans feel that they are better off in recent years at least financially than they were during most of obama's second term--  and it isn't hard to make a case for better the devil you know.


As far as Biden's odds go-- I think there is a lot to be said about the strategic value of him vs trump. But he is impressively old-- several years older than Trump who would himself be the oldest person elected president if he is re-elected.  When McCain/Palin ran there were many people who voted against who otherwise would have supported McCain because of the considerable odds of Palin becoming president.   I think all the candidates who are older than trump (Biden, Sanders, who else?) will have their presidential odds heavily influenced by who they choose as a running mate.

Interestingly, I believe my views are opposite Theymos' relative to how the odds change with an economic downturn.

I believe that if there is no downturn (or esp with an upswing) then the only candidates that have a chance are ones like Biden who offend few and seem non-threatening to most interests but will pick up the ANYONE BUT TRUMP voting block. If you're happy with how things are, you can trust that someone like Biden is not going to upset the apple cart too much-- maybe even less than trump, as many people still do worry that trump will accidentally escalate a twitter fight into a shooting war (since the media hasn't been tirelessly over-hyping that risk for the past two years I think people are less wary of it than random trump scandal dejure).

If there is a major economic event, however, the status quo will not be what people want, and candidates like Yang or Sanders (and sadly, Warren) would pick up the greatest boost-- much more than a more boring player.

Maybe my position is different from Theymos because I've seen literally none of the recent campaigning or debates? Is that the source of the discrepancy?

This sort of analysis should keep in mind that normally an ordinary recession takes a rather long time for it to really upset the public... at time goes on the downturn probabilities will start to require a catastrophic event in the economy and not just an ordinary recession.

[Flying Hellfish]

I'm surprised to see some people here named Kamala Harris as a preference to win.

There isn't much need to worry about Harris at this point in the race, her lane is overcrowded, she can't get her poll numbers to move and she doesn't even poll well in her home state.  She is not authentic and the base isn't excited by her.  She has little chance of winning the nom but she may think she has a shot at VP and so she will hang around and try to showcase herself a while.

As far as Biden's odds go--

Biden's best day at the polls was the day he announced, he is trending down and running out of cash FAST (raised a measly 15 mill while he spent 17 mill in Q3).  He has a pittance left on hand of 8 mill (Sanders has over 33 million on hand).

This is going to be a base/turn out election, flipping moderates from one side to the other isn't a big enough number to pander to the centrist of either party (especially in the primaries).  IMO Biden will not excite the democratic base and he risks being HRC 2.0.  The campaign has already conceded they won't win IA or NH, it's SC or bust for Biden, when he loses SC he will be out!

If there is a major economic event, however, the status quo will not be what people want, and candidates like Yang or Sanders (and sadly, Warren) would pick up the greatest boost-- much more than a more boring player.

The dem base already doesn't think the economy is working for the working class which is why Sanders and Warren are both beating Biden in early states like IA and NH.  If the base wanted status quo Warren and Sanders would be outliers polling at sub 3%, instead it's all the centrists (except Biden) that are poll outliers

I think the biggest problem Bernie faces is the age and the recent heart attack, the man is in fantastic shape and health reportedly for his age but he is old and that can't be denied.

The dem nominee will need to energize the base and get record breaking turn out if they want to beat Trump in 2020, they won't be able to do it flipping moderates!

The economy could take a downturn and Trump's base isn't going anywhere, since this is a base/turnout election anything short of a full on depression likely won't make a huge difference in who one votes for.

[TECSHARE]

"Biden FORGOT To Buy Campaign Website So Trump BOUGHT IT, Trump Made Biden Look Very Stupid"  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0xHhrosohE

http://www.todosconbiden.com

https://twitter.com/todosconbiden/

[Spendulus]

I'm surprised to see some people here named Kamala Harris as a preference to win.

Harris is a bad egg-- with a history full of overly aggressive prosecution of victimless crimes. Her naked ambition drove her to engage in the most absurd prosecutions just to make a name for herself.  For example, the prosecution of backpage is obviously outrageous even if you view the entire thing through the lense of law enforcement's own claims of what happened.

In her role as prosecutor she abused the states power to the maximum extent possible and treated the rule of law as just a PR game.  And she was effective at it.  There are other candidates who might aspire to such abuses, but for the most part they haven't demonstrated the competence to pull them off......

So it's more or less "From the pack of lying sociopaths who am I going to pick to be my lying sociopath?"

[TECSHARE]

I'm surprised to see some people here named Kamala Harris as a preference to win.

Harris is a bad egg-- with a history full of overly aggressive prosecution of victimless crimes. Her naked ambition drove her to engage in the most absurd prosecutions just to make a name for herself.  For example, the prosecution of backpage is obviously outrageous even if you view the entire thing through the lense of law enforcement's own claims of what happened.

In her role as prosecutor she abused the states power to the maximum extent possible and treated the rule of law as just a PR game.  And she was effective at it.  There are other candidates who might aspire to such abuses, but for the most part they haven't demonstrated the competence to pull them off......

So it's more or less "From the pack of lying sociopaths who am I going to pick to be my lying sociopath?"

Kamala Harris is a slightly more brown, slightly less homicidal version of Hillary Clinton.

[Spendulus]

I'm surprised to see some people here named Kamala Harris as a preference to win.

Harris is a bad egg-- with a history full of overly aggressive prosecution of victimless crimes. Her naked ambition drove her to engage in the most absurd prosecutions just to make a name for herself.  For example, the prosecution of backpage is obviously outrageous even if you view the entire thing through the lense of law enforcement's own claims of what happened.

In her role as prosecutor she abused the states power to the maximum extent possible and treated the rule of law as just a PR game.  And she was effective at it.  There are other candidates who might aspire to such abuses, but for the most part they haven't demonstrated the competence to pull them off......

So it's more or less "From the pack of lying sociopaths who am I going to pick to be my lying sociopath?"

Kamala Harris is a slightly more brown, slightly less homicidal version of Hillary Clinton.

Yet to reach her full potential?

[theymos]

Interestingly, I believe my views are opposite Theymos' relative to how the odds change with an economic downturn.

I believe that if there is no downturn (or esp with an upswing) then the only candidates that have a chance are ones like Biden who offend few and seem non-threatening to most interests but will pick up the ANYONE BUT TRUMP voting block. If you're happy with how things are, you can trust that someone like Biden is not going to upset the apple cart too much-- maybe even less than trump, as many people still do worry that trump will accidentally escalate a twitter fight into a shooting war (since the media hasn't been tirelessly over-hyping that risk for the past two years I think people are less wary of it than random trump scandal dejure).

Many communities will be thinking in those terms, but perhaps not the most influential states in the election. Having grown up in the rust belt, I think that the swing demographic there is thinking this way: The economy was for this community in shambles before Trump, and they were completely ignored in the national conversation. Trump noticed them, and furthermore a case can be made that he's moving things in the right direction: unemployment is very low and the news keeps talking about how the economy is great. However, this community is actually suffering quite a bit from tariffs, and much of the economic development is surface-level or the same coastal-concentrated wealth expansion as was seen under Obama. The rust belt Trump supporters are driven by a little real progress and a lot of hope/faith. If that hope is shattered by a noticeable downturn before the election, then they will still be very angry and looking for change, but they will have lost faith in Trump. Instead, they will go to a radical on the other side. This rust belt demographic is not all that strongly tied to economic conservatism (or any ideology, really), and things like medicare for all or an increased minimum wage will speak to them.

Kamala Harris is a slightly more brown, slightly less homicidal version of Hillary Clinton.

I actually think that I'd prefer Hillary over Kamala. When I watch some really old videos of Hillary, I get the sense that she had some actual beliefs and passions. I think that she might've started out as a true believer (in some ideology), but being in the swamp for so many decades corrupted her substantially. But maybe she's only 99% evil instead of 100%.

Kamala on the other hand I think is and always has been rotten to the core.

[TECSHARE]

Kamala Harris is a slightly more brown, slightly less homicidal version of Hillary Clinton.

I actually think that I'd prefer Hillary over Kamala. When I watch some really old videos of Hillary, I get the sense that she had some actual beliefs and passions. I think that she might've started out as a true believer (in some ideology), but being in the swamp for so many decades corrupted her substantially. But maybe she's only 99% evil instead of 100%.

Kamala on the other hand I think is and always has been rotten to the core.

Nah, she is 330% evil. She has left a trail of bodies behind her since before Arkansas. In fact it is multi-generational, her dad was a bootlegger who took up the mantle of Al Capone once he was gone.

Also saw this today...


"Bernie Supporters Just Gave Democrats An Ultimatum, Nominate Bernie Or Trump Wins 2020"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGcTqqqAxU8

BWAHAHAHA... put a fork in the Dems, they're done.

[Spendulus]

....
I actually think that I'd prefer Hillary over Kamala. When I watch some really old videos of Hillary, I get the sense that she had some actual beliefs and passions. I think that she might've started out as a true believer (in some ideology), but being in the swamp for so many decades corrupted her substantially. But maybe she's only 99% evil instead of 100%.

Kamala on the other hand I think is and always has been rotten to the core.

Hillary changed. NOT SURE why, but what we've seen in the last 5 years is not the Hillary of 1980s-1990s.

[Quickseller]

Harris is too transparent that she will say anything necessary to obtain political power. This became clear when she criticized Biden's support of 'bussing' in a debate a couple of months ago -- she got some headlines, but the merits behind the criticism quickly fell apart.

Nationally, she is polling at around 5% in the RCP national average for the nomination, and I don't think this is high enough to have a realistic shot. She is probably in the worst possible position in that she is doing well enough so that she is expected to receive delegate votes, but low enough so that she may not get more than one or two in the early primaries, which could lead to donors pulling funding. The candidates polling in the 1% range on the other hand are not expected to get any delegate votes, and if they do, they should expect to see a major influx of donations.

Trump currently has a major advantage in terms of funding by a large margin. He is accumulating a bigger war chest than he can realistically spend this early in the cycle, and will have plenty of money once the 2020 cycle really heats up. Ditto with the GOP as a whole, especially since the impeachment inquiry has started. Democrats on the other hand are receiving much less from donors, and are having to spend more than they are receiving (they are in debt), and more overall because they are competing with eachother.

[audaciousbeing]

Except Hillary joined the race as being tormented by Trump, its more of Biden than any other candidate and the advantage he has is the fact he served with Obama which many people loved and used as a yardstick to the presidency of Trump and won't mind having it back. In essence, except something strong happen on the contrary even the scandal that could pull him down on account of his son relationship is being fought from all side by them focusing on the role played by the President other than whether what he did was wrong of right, he is expected to sail through.

[Rikafip]

Beto O'Rourke is dropping out of the presidential race.

Mr. O’Rourke planned to announce his withdrawal from the race in Iowa on Friday evening and follow up with an email message to his supporters. In that message, a draft of which was reviewed by The New York Times, Mr. O’Rourke said he was proud of championing issues like guns and climate change but conceded that his campaign lacked “the means to move forward successfully.”

“My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee,” he said. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I honestly didn't see that coming few months ago, wasn't he considered as one of the candidates who actually have some chances of winning?

[TECSHARE]

Beto O'Rourke is dropping out of the presidential race.

Mr. O’Rourke planned to announce his withdrawal from the race in Iowa on Friday evening and follow up with an email message to his supporters. In that message, a draft of which was reviewed by The New York Times, Mr. O’Rourke said he was proud of championing issues like guns and climate change but conceded that his campaign lacked “the means to move forward successfully.”

“My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee,” he said. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I honestly didn't see that coming few months ago, wasn't he considered as one of the candidates who actually have some chances of winning?

#oneless

[Spendulus]

Beto O'Rourke is dropping out of the presidential race.

Mr. O’Rourke planned to announce his withdrawal from the race in Iowa on Friday evening and follow up with an email message to his supporters. In that message, a draft of which was reviewed by The New York Times, Mr. O’Rourke said he was proud of championing issues like guns and climate change but conceded that his campaign lacked “the means to move forward successfully.”

“My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee,” he said. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I honestly didn't see that coming few months ago, wasn't he considered as one of the candidates who actually have some chances of winning?

He was a candidate who had huge money poured in early to publicize him as a guy coming out of nowhere to run. But it did in fact seem that as people listened to him, and came to understand what he was and was not, he was a nothing burger.

[squatz1]

Harris is too transparent that she will say anything necessary to obtain political power. This became clear when she criticized Biden's support of 'bussing' in a debate a couple of months ago -- she got some headlines, but the merits behind the criticism quickly fell apart.

Nationally, she is polling at around 5% in the RCP national average for the nomination, and I don't think this is high enough to have a realistic shot. She is probably in the worst possible position in that she is doing well enough so that she is expected to receive delegate votes, but low enough so that she may not get more than one or two in the early primaries, which could lead to donors pulling funding. The candidates polling in the 1% range on the other hand are not expected to get any delegate votes, and if they do, they should expect to see a major influx of donations.

Trump currently has a major advantage in terms of funding by a large margin. He is accumulating a bigger war chest than he can realistically spend this early in the cycle, and will have plenty of money once the 2020 cycle really heats up. Ditto with the GOP as a whole, especially since the impeachment inquiry has started. Democrats on the other hand are receiving much less from donors, and are having to spend more than they are receiving (they are in debt), and more overall because they are competing with eachother.

Without a doubt true.

If you are to look at Harris' history too, you're able to see that Harris is a law and order conservative (or at least was) when she was the DA in California and that's going to be a massive liability. There's no way she's going to be able to win this primary. Everyone knows shes just a politician.. nothing more, nothing less. Pretty much Clinton.

Biden is in a rut right now -- he's the punching bag of all the other candidates and he's the 'electable' candidate of all of them and that's going to hurt him. You shouldn't be picking a candidate based on that, you pick them based on values and beliefs and what they end it like that. Clinton lite over here.

Sanders or Warren is going to be the nominee. We'll see where that takes them.

[Quickseller]

Harris is too transparent that she will say anything necessary to obtain political power. This became clear when she criticized Biden's support of 'bussing' in a debate a couple of months ago -- she got some headlines, but the merits behind the criticism quickly fell apart.

Nationally, she is polling at around 5% in the RCP national average for the nomination, and I don't think this is high enough to have a realistic shot. She is probably in the worst possible position in that she is doing well enough so that she is expected to receive delegate votes, but low enough so that she may not get more than one or two in the early primaries, which could lead to donors pulling funding. The candidates polling in the 1% range on the other hand are not expected to get any delegate votes, and if they do, they should expect to see a major influx of donations.

Trump currently has a major advantage in terms of funding by a large margin. He is accumulating a bigger war chest than he can realistically spend this early in the cycle, and will have plenty of money once the 2020 cycle really heats up. Ditto with the GOP as a whole, especially since the impeachment inquiry has started. Democrats on the other hand are receiving much less from donors, and are having to spend more than they are receiving (they are in debt), and more overall because they are competing with eachother.

Without a doubt true.

If you are to look at Harris' history too, you're able to see that Harris is a law and order conservative (or at least was) when she was the DA in California and that's going to be a massive liability. There's no way she's going to be able to win this primary. Everyone knows shes just a politician.. nothing more, nothing less. Pretty much Clinton.

Biden is in a rut right now -- he's the punching bag of all the other candidates and he's the 'electable' candidate of all of them and that's going to hurt him. You shouldn't be picking a candidate based on that, you pick them based on values and beliefs and what they end it like that. Clinton lite over here.

Sanders or Warren is going to be the nominee. We'll see where that takes them.

There are reports that Harris got into politics/government by sleeping with someone in power. This would be further evidence that she is willing to say anything to get in power but also removes credibility because it is difficult to gauge her actual convictions. I don’t see her getting the nomination and she may not even get re-elected in the senate, but the later is less likely.

Biden is highest in the polls and other candidates are trying to make the news by throwing punches that they hope will help themselves in the polls, or to eventually land them a job in the administration if someone else gets elected.

Warrens aggression against Wall Street and corporate America is hurting donations to Democrats across the board. If she gets the nomination, down ballot candidates may have trouble fundraising, which may dampen turnout overall for democrats.

[Spendulus]

.....
Biden is in a rut right now -- he's the punching bag of all the other candidates and he's the 'electable' candidate....

Sanders or Warren is going to be the nominee. We'll see where that takes them.

I betcha the power brokers in the back yard are going to push That Biden Dude on those chumps out there in the country.