Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[MikeDawg]

MikeDawg, the point is that Bernie actually fire up people, while Beto make them fall asleep. This is particularly important if you care about beating an incumbent president in the best economy ever. The number of contributors is a good way to track this.

Beto is my 6th choice.

That said, early voting youth turnout in Texas increased by 477% in 2018.

Beto was completely unknown before his senate run, having less than 40% name recognition in texas and practically no recognition outside of Texas. Despite this, he became a national celebrity, getting nearly half of his donations from fans in other states.

In 2014, the republican senate candidate won by 28%. In 2016, Cruz won by 2.5%, or 200k votes.

Beto broke senate fundraising records, raising $38 million from 800k donors in just 3 months. For reference, Bernie peaked at only $33 million from ~1mil donors in his presidential run.

It's ridiculously stupid (at best) to say Beto makes people "fall asleep" compared to Bernie, when Beto's numbers imply that he is outright better at generating enthusiasm.


Edit: side note, if you want to talk about "beating trump", moderates historically do significantly better vs opposing incumbents. If you support someone popular not named Beto or Biden, I suggest you stay away from that talking point.

 

[Myzozoa]

https://psmag.com/economics/elizabe...5vfUmIyoKS8jUcOXxoORIjUy9540bRDccHFoOe07CJ2iU

"Warren's bill seeks to chip away at predatory mortgage-flipping practices, by requiring the Federal Housing Authority to sell a minimum of 75 percent of single-family properties acquired through foreclosure to owner-occupant buyers or to community groups who will rehab the properties and sell them to owner-occupants. The bill also puts limitations on the sale of non-performing loans—those that a borrower has failed to make payments on—by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and requires greater transparency with borrowers. And, it offers support for families whose housing wealth was destroyed by the financial crisis by investing $2 billion in borrowers with negative equity on their mortgages, predominantly in suburban and rural communities."

pretty close to what i have in mind by a free housing policy, this is how to mostly fold reparations into free housing, this is what some community organizations have settled on as a possible tactic. to help comprehend this, here is something I think is a helpful illustration

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/654085265/the-american-dream-one-block-can-make-all-the-difference

"Brawley says a cycle of poverty has been broken: Those quaint, $30,000 Nehemiah houses, built on land once sold for a dollar, are now valued at as much as $500,000. "Families now have wealth that they can pass down generationally," he says."

 

[Chou Toshio]

Do you ever respond to the point people are actually making or do you just respond with the first almost tangentially related thing that pops into your mind?

FTR I don’t like Beto at all, but this post is as stupid as it is condescending and irrelevant.

Beto got 6 million dollars > Okay, but where from? Why not release the number of people or average donation per person? > 120k donations, 47 each > But... we asked for people not number of donations. > Obviously if there are that many donations, there must be lots of people. Only young immature people stoop to dirty tactics to get their guy voted. > But...

*Looks at CNN Power rankings based on zero substance*
*Looks at CNN putting in unlabled political plants in Sanders and Gabbard Town Halls to ask attack questions*
*Looks at the number of negative Sanders stories by Washington Post*
etc.etc.etc.
....
....
....
*3 years worth of Bernie hate*
....
....
....
*Looks at the 2016 rigging*
*Looks at Ed Schultz being fired by MSNBC for trying to covers Sander's launch*
....
....

The point is, the apparatus of media, party, and government (and technology and intelligence community for that matter)--- ESPECIALLY the part PRETENDING to be "liberal" is built to weaken democracy and prevent reform from the left. It's all built to protect the economic interests of the rich, and watching how outrageous, unjust, and sometimes even criminal the tactics of the establishment are, pretending young progressives are the outrageous ones is just really really silly.

 

[atomicllamas]

Imagine unironically responding to that post of mine with something completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

 

[Shrug]

it's pretty amusing imagining how popular history will abuse whoever comes from this crop of democratic candidates after trump wins again. theyll recast trump as the everyman president, the guy who posted and ate with the hogs of this country. the loser here will be bundled with clinton as out of touch, but for what reason? not a bad afternoon thinking about the possibilities. try to move beyond the obvious, like they were personal characteristic {nonwhite nonmale nonhet too rich too poor} supposedly repellent to the imagined swine protagonist of american reality and go deeper: beto orourke doesnt like country music, or liz warren has a bowl cut, or some shit.

they do this because they cannot admit the actual cause of trump's election: the hatred and malice that drives americans' need to see hierarchy performatively enforced in the public political theater. republicans who win pull this off.

this election is going to be mostly about ilhan omar, hillary clinton, and fuck it like bengazi or whatever. you think donald trump is going hand to hand over the SDFJKWEROQWEJFNQJWEFRBSDAJFBWQDIFEQNO Welfare Modernization and Equal Opportunity Access Fairness Cost Stakeholders Healthcare Act on the back page of [redacted]2020.com? you think people want to see that? that's going to be persuasive?

none of these people understand this, and most voters dont. this thread does not inspire hope. offering bernie sanders as something radically or even at all fundamentally different does not reveal a deep knowledge of what drives u.s voters. and honestly im baffled by mikedawgs commitment to going fucking beastmode about... bernie? or something else? i really cannot track the thruline. whatever,

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Looks like Mayor Pete has rocketed out of nowhere to take 3rd in the polls at 11%, behind Biden and Bernie. Now, since we already know that Biden isnt gonna last, its probably gonna be between Mayor Pete and Bernie for the nomination. I was gonna say this was Beto's to lose, but Im gonna have to change my mind on this because Mayor Pete has the intelligence and also that "it" factor too. And everyone else had name recognition and hes still blowing them out of the water polling wise. I cant imagine Harris, Booker, or Warren catching up because they are all low IQ wet bags with 0 charisma or former cops who put black people in prison for no reason or dimwits who makes up a fake gangster friend named 'T-Bone' and is also in the bed with pharmaceutical companies.

Mayor Pete might be the DNC saving grace though, as hes charming and extremely intelligent, speaking 8 languages and also being a Rhodes Scholar. Reminds me of Bill Clinton without the saxophone or the rape. The takes in this thread that say Harris or Warren or Booker are capable of connecting to voters enough to get them the DNC nomination are just awful. I dont know what videos of these people you are watching but there is absolutely nothing about the body language or way of speaking or ability to connect with a crowd that makes you think they will garner any votes. Can we please just admit they are morons already? Which is why I pin the race to Mayor Pete or Bernie

 

[GatoDelFuego]

it's pretty amusing imagining how popular history will abuse whoever comes from this crop of democratic candidates after trump wins again. theyll recast trump as the everyman president, the guy who posted and ate with the hogs of this country. the loser here will be bundled with clinton as out of touch, but for what reason? not a bad afternoon thinking about the possibilities. try to move beyond the obvious, like they were personal characteristic {nonwhite nonmale nonhet too rich too poor} supposedly repellent to the imagined swine protagonist of american reality and go deeper: beto orourke doesnt like country music, or liz warren has a bowl cut, or some shit.

they do this because they cannot admit the actual cause of trump's election: the hatred and malice that drives americans' need to see hierarchy performatively enforced in the public political theater. republicans who win pull this off.

this election is going to be mostly about ilhan omar, hillary clinton, and fuck it like bengazi or whatever. you think donald trump is going hand to hand over the SDFJKWEROQWEJFNQJWEFRBSDAJFBWQDIFEQNO Welfare Modernization and Equal Opportunity Access Fairness Cost Stakeholders Healthcare Act on the back page of [redacted]2020.com? you think people want to see that? that's going to be persuasive?

none of these people understand this, and most voters dont. this thread does not inspire hope. offering bernie sanders as something radically or even at all fundamentally different does not reveal a deep knowledge of what drives u.s voters. and honestly im baffled by mikedawgs commitment to going fucking beastmode about... bernie? or something else? i really cannot track the thruline. whatever,

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/eli...K4bFJAWsJZeMqq-DidH6Wp9Xjs1EPQqoJO3Ytoa-HGDNg
'
Early-childhood programs currently cost from 9 percent to as much as 36 percent of a working-class parent's wages, Warren said, citing a study from the Economic Policy Institute. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), child care is affordable if it costs no more than 10 percent of a family's income. By this standard, less than half (48.4 percent) of Alabama families can afford infant care, the EPI study found. The average annual cost of infant care in Alabama is $5,637, or $470 per month — that's equal to 70 percent of monthly rent cost in Alabama.

The cost of center-based infant care can take up between 27 percent to 91 percent of the average income of a single parent, according to a study from Child Care Aware of America that Warren cited.

Under Warren's proposed plan, the federal government would partner with local providers — including states, cities, school districts and nonprofits — to provide access to child care centers, preschool centers, and in-home child care. The idea is that the program will let families choose from a roster of federally-approved day care centers in their area that would be administered locally but subject to national standards and monitoring. Child-care and preschool workers would be paid comparable to public teacher pay.'

where i live, childcare/month costs more than rent/month for 2 kids.

 

[RODAN]

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/...izwfuNAWplpFIDZ3Q5JcWIWITxsvs5ndrDETglrqY6eiM
buttigieg is a fuccboi and david brooks can eat my asshole

 

[MikeDawg]

 

[Chou Toshio]

[Opinion]
So here is my perception of the odds of each of the potential result with the current field-- interested in people's agree/disagree responses and rationale:

Bernie Sanders
Odds of winning the primary: 40%

Reasoning

Universal name recognition, universal platform recognition, 50 state infrastructure, widest grass roots support, most volunteers, one of the frontrunners in fundraising. The progressive wing is largely coalescing behind him, as we can see that Warren and Gabbard really struggle for oxygen, so that is his lane.

Odds of winning the general vs. Trump: 80% (90% if Sanders adopts Yang's Freedom Dividend)

Reasoning

The strengths of Trump in campaigning against Hillary largely fall flat against Sanders. Bernie has no weakness on trade or economic populism. He has no weakness in donor source. Trump was more willing to insinuate the unspeakable truths of the country than Hillary or any of the GOP (attacks on the real corruption of the intelligence community, media, military industrial complex, elites), but Bernie speaks to those problems, not insinuates them, and has a much more honest and nuanced criticism of each. If it becomes a war over who is more populist, Bernie will win.

Especially since when you go to MAGA supporting parts of the internet, all you see is anger and frustration at NAFTA being just as corrupt as before, many of their taxes going up instead of down, Trump being subservient to Israel ("the Jews") and Saudi Arabia, John Bolten and neocons in with Steve Bannon out, NO WALL etc. etc. And you see LOTS of online support from libertarians and the Alt Right for Andrew Yang. If Yang and Gabbard both endorse Bernie (which is extremely likely) the Trump populist base will become disorganized. If Bernie adopts Yang's UBI plan, Trump's support will outright crumble because so many are picking Yang "just for the $$".

Kamala Harris, Pete Buttegieg, or Beto O'Roark wins the primary: 30%

Reasoning

First off the very nature of these elections means that the moneyed interests will have their candidate-- the $ and political infrastructure behind both Obama and the Clintons is out there, and looking for its candidate. There is also a genuine thirst amongst older democratic voters for a younger face that promises less hostility and more consensus. While I think Pete Buttegieg is a far preferable candidate to the other two, I have put them together because they are more or less running in the same way, and being treated by the media in the same way (and Buttegieg is still opening his bank account to Wallstreet, Big Pharma, Silicon Valley, etc.). Which will come out on top-- all 3 have their strengths and have shown ability to seize support and raise money so it's hard to say. I would bet on Harris, Buttegieg, O'Roark in that order.

General Election Odds:
Buttegieg: 40%
Harris: 45%
O'Roark: 5%

Reasoning

Buttegieg is a candidate progressives will easily swing behind if Trump is the alternative. He somewhat knows how to sing the populist song when needed, and how to seem like a "good boy" for the older voters. I'm tempted to give him an even higher rating, but my gut tells me that this clean-shaven Rhode Scholar prep boy is susceptible to getting stomped out by Trump. A part of me wants to say he's a stronger candidate than Hillary, but part of me says no.

Edit: I changed Pete from 55% to 40% because after watching a few more vids of him talk I really lack confidence that he won’t get wrecked by Trump.

Harris' only chance of winning is in riding a wave of black identity politics and Democratic rage against Trump-- this really would be the most divisive and fierce version of the general election. The mainstream left will largely unify (there are many progressives/left independents she will fail to motivate), but so will the right. Harris triggers every sensitivity of the right... they'll become EXTREMELY motivated, and all criticism of Trump will go out the window. Same if Booker is the candidate. That sounds really racist, but even if there are many non-racist individuals on the right, as a voting block they absolutely vote racist. There is nothing that will unite the right and flip independent voters like a candidate running primarily on identity politics. This would be ALL THE RAGE OF THE RIGHT vs. ALL THE RAGE OF THE LEFT with high money donors and media propaganda turned up to 300% on both sides-- truly a civil war.
(note: so if you're looking for a bi-partisan candidate who can bring national "unity", Harris is not your candidate if we are being honest.)

O'Roark: O'Roark would have fit snugly as another "me too" amongst the GOP primary last year. His finances look like that and his voting record does too-- and like the rest of the GOP field, he lost to Cruz (and imo is less intelligible/substantive than Cruz). No matter how much money and vitriol the establishment throws into the race, I think Beto is a beta with slim to no odds of beating Trump.

Joe Biden
Odds of winning the primary: 10%

Reasoning

Universal name recognition and current leader in the polls gives Joe his own category and he really has his own lane. DINO consensus maker + Obama nostalgia. The main reason I have him at 10% is that the mainstream media is largely seeming to favor the younger centrists. He doesn't appeal to the older voters who want a young energetic candidate, and younger voters will not accept his "creepiness" or his extremely right-wing record. Post 2016 we have the most progressive and aware democratic base in generations, and the fact that Biden's function in passing the Crime Bill, Bankruptcy Bill, Repealing Glass Steagall, Patriot Act, NAFTA are directly connected to in the inflated prisons, credit card/student loan debt crises, Wallstreet collapse, surveillance state, and union collapses-- basically all the ills the left now widely rebukes-- is going to catch up with him when he jumps in. He also has a way of petering out based on his last two bids for the office.

Odds of winning the general vs. Trump: 30%

Reasoning

This is the candidate of the #resistance and the #nevertrump-er's. A lot of the right wing elite will prefer Biden over Trump, so Biden will swing those voters in a way Hillary kind of faltered on. His record is arguably right wing of Trump, and he is a white man. Also Obama will campaign massively for him. That said, all of the grass roots energy and enthusiasm on the left will dissipate if he becomes the nominee. #BernieorBust is stronger than it was 4 years ago, and no democratic candidate will enthuse "bust" votes like Biden. I also don't think there is any primary scenario where Biden wins and Sanders voters don't at least perceive it as corrupt and biased. #Metoo will probably stay home too.

Andrew Yang
Odds of winning the primary: 10%

Reasoning

Yang has an X factor that no other candidate has. He really has his own lane, and his own ideas. There is a gut instinct inside me that none of the other candidates will be able to hold up particularly well against him in a debate. His knowledge, attention to detail, and rigorous arguments are driving rational minds to swing behind him from all walks of the voter base. Whether he can overcome being a minor, little-well-known candidate and an Asian man (which is definitely a strike against him in the US on either the left or the right) remains to be seen. But the energy behind him is real, and his campaign is progressing in a way no other is-- a true wild card black horse.

Also, FYI: Q1 raised 1.7 Million dollars from 80,000 donors, $17.92 each (that's 2-3 dollars less than Bernie)

Odds of winning the general vs. Trump: 99.9%

Reasoning

...yeah, Trump has very very very very little chance of beating Yang in a general election.
-The MAGA base will crumble because many actually prefer Yang.
-The white working class will swing behind Yang because he puts their issues front and center.
-Libertarian base will swing behind the man who preaches from Milton Friedman and will not pander to conservative social issues.
-Tucker Carlson prefers Yang > Trump, and I could even easily see Yang picking up the endorsements of people like Anne Coulter and much of the IDW. Maybe even Steve Bannon.
-The liberal elite will jump behind Yang vs. Trump because he really triggers the "one of us" response (because he is a liberal elite...), and he understands the world in very much the same terms. Also being a young business-savvy progressive? Beto and O'Rourke voters will get behind Yang in a general.
-Minorities might not prefer Yang to say Harris, but they will definitely choose Yang over Trump
-Younger voters, progressives, and social democrats are already supportive of Yang (though many democratic socialists are not), and while waver on him vs. Bernie, will absolutely congeal behind Yang vs. Trump.

It's actually difficult to determine which voter group would definitely support Trump > Yang. Trump has little to no base against Yang.
-Yang is the logical pick for any voter that wants to prioritize beating Trump no matter what.
-Yang is also strangely the logical pick of any voter who prioritizes bi-partisan "unity" in the American People.

One of the other candidates winning the primary: 10%

Reasoning

Most are currently struggling for Oxygen or to find a lane. Most lack any particular talents or ideas to set them aside from the competiton. Tulsi and Warren bring their own progressive creds and are serious candidates, but they don't have enough to differentiate themselves from Sanders imo.

Maybe 5% Warren / Gabbard, 5% rest of the field is also a fair assessment. In Gabbard's case, I think her candidacy is part of a bigger play to get Bernie elected anyway, but we shall see-- the relationship between the two has largely been kept hush hush. Tulsi is undoubtedly one of the prime candidates for a Sanders VP though.

One of the other candidates winning against Trump:
Warren: 45%
Gabbard: 70%
Centrist Junior Varsity league: 20%

Reasoning

Warren: Knows how to speak real populism, but has a tendency to gaf on being progressive. +Pocahontas. She just lacks good political strategic instincts even though she's a fighter and a wonk on policy.
Gabbard: Pretty similar story to Yang, but to a lesser degree. Most voters put the economic issues front and center, and the fact that she doesn't makes her case a bit weaker than Yang imo.
Centrist Junior Varsity league: Basically they are weaker Pete Buttegieg's or Kamala Harris's. Some I could imagine doing better than O'Roark.

 

[faint]

Now THAT is what I call a good April Fool's joke.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Now THAT is what I call a good April Fool's joke.

Feel free to argue against anything you found to be a joke. xD

 

[Asek]

gas

 

[Dece1t]

Feel free to argue against anything you found to be a joke. xD

Sure. By no means would I call myself a strong Trump supporter (if at all), but I think it's very naive to say Bernie Sanders has an 80% chance to beat Donald Trump. I say that because you don't want to fall into the same trap that the media fell into when predicting the 2016 US Election with Hillary Clinton. Trump is now the incumbent, the economy is doing great under him, and he's kept many of the promises he pledged to (I stress especially the increase of manufacturing jobs because the Great Lakes area did vote for him, and narrowly he won the presidency because of them). You also have to note that the reasons Dems gained wins in 2018 is because they ran a lot of moderate candidates in suburban areas across the US, and that is an area where Trump admittedly needs to pick himself up. Bernie Sanders is pretty far left, whether you like that aspect of him or not, and going too far could push suburban independents into Trump's camp (which is the part of the population both candidates should focus their strongest attention to coming into 2020).

Going on to Electoral Strategy though, assuming Trump wins Florida again (which is leaning red), all he would really need to realistically do to retain the presidency is to keep at least two of the following: Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Wisconsin recently held an election for a vacant state Supreme Court seat with surprisingly large turnout, and the conservative candidate won by a pretty fair margin. Admittedly, PA does have the chance of going back to blue given the slimness of the 2016 election and the Democratic wins there in the 2018 midterms, but they also just had a recent state election where they did vote blue. That is largely because the Democrat that won is a military veteran with blue collar appeal (aka a strong moderate). That's where I have my apprehension as to whether PA is starting to lean blue again or not. Michigan, however, is probably the strongest toss up, however, but once again, the economy and rise of manufacturing jobs (as promised) may keep them with Trump, but it is pretty uncertain right now.

If you want my honesty as to who has the strongest chance of beating Donald Trump, it's Joe Biden, largely because of that blue collar and suburban appeal (even with the #MeToo drama going on, which is kinda stupid but that's a story for another day). However, I do agree that Bernie is the strongest Democrat candidate going into the primaries. I strongly disagree that he has an 80% win rate though, and here's where I would amend that. I would put him in the low 50s in that I would edge Bernie (given if Trump loses one out of the 3 states in the trifecta I mentioned earlier, he's gonna be in serious trouble), but I think that contentiously it's gonna be even closer than 2016.

Sidenote: Trump is subserviant to Israel ("The Jews")? Dude, be careful with going into that territory, I'd presume you're not an anti-semite. It's one thing to disagree with Israeli government policy, but it's a whole different territory to go on the lines of Trump unquestioningly obeying "The Jews." That's dicey and I'd watch it.

 

[earl]

Wisconsinite here, Hagedorn won in Wisconsin by .2%, that’s not a “fair” margin dude that’s incredibly close. Doesn’t signal too much especially considering we elected a democrat governor over incumbent Scott Walker last November. His victory is due mainly to heavy conservative turnout, this could signal a Trump win come 2020 tho if dems don’t turn out.

No other issues with the rest of the post, just pointing out that Wisconsin could swing either way

 

[Dece1t]

Wisconsinite here, Hagedorn won in Wisconsin by .2%, that’s not a “fair” margin dude that’s incredibly close. Doesn’t signal too much especially considering we elected a democrat governor over incumbent Scott Walker last November. His victory is due mainly to heavy conservative turnout, this could signal a Trump win come 2020 tho if dems don’t turn out.

No other issues with the rest of the post, just pointing out that Wisconsin could swing either way

I agree Wisconsin is still a strong swing state, all the way, I was mainly pointing out the high turnout all around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think conservative turnout was the only part that was high, it seemed like turnout in general was. Don't get me wrong, by fair amount I meant enough to consider relatively favorable (as in there's some cushioning to say there's a very slight lean), I'm not talking about a whole say 4% point difference.

 

[earl]

I agree Wisconsin is still a strong swing state, all the way, I was mainly pointing out the high turnout all around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think conservative turnout was the only part that was high, it seemed like turnout in general was. Don't get me wrong, by fair amount I meant enough to consider relatively favorable (as in there's some cushioning to say there's a very slight lean), I'm not talking about a whole say 4% point difference.

From what I could gather at least, turnout was strong all around but noticeably stronger for conservatives (about 2% more iirc, don’t quote me on that number tho)

 

[atomicllamas]

I agree Wisconsin is still a strong swing state, all the way, I was mainly pointing out the high turnout all around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think conservative turnout was the only part that was high, it seemed like turnout in general was. Don't get me wrong, by fair amount I meant enough to consider relatively favorable (as in there's some cushioning to say there's a very slight lean), I'm not talking about a whole say 4% point difference.

Turnout was good for an off year election everywhere except Milwaukee county, which only had a 26% turnout. I don’t think Milwaukee county (Wisconsin’s most populous blue county) will have as relatively poor of a turnout in an on year November election, but it’s probably a sign dems need to do a better GOTV campaign in Milwaukee in future elections. (Sidenote rip Wisconsin, Hagedorn is fucking awful).

 

[Chou Toshio]

Sure. By no means would I call myself a strong Trump supporter (if at all), but I think it's very naive to say Bernie Sanders has an 80% chance to beat Donald Trump. I say that because you don't want to fall into the same trap that the media fell into when predicting the 2016 US Election with Hillary Clinton. Trump is now the incumbent, the economy is doing great under him, and he's kept many of the promises he pledged to (I stress especially the increase of manufacturing jobs because the Great Lakes area did vote for him, and narrowly he won the presidency because of them). You also have to note that the reasons Dems gained wins in 2018 is because they ran a lot of moderate candidates in suburban areas across the US, and that is an area where Trump admittedly needs to pick himself up. Bernie Sanders is pretty far left, whether you like that aspect of him or not, and going too far could push suburban independents into Trump's camp (which is the part of the population both candidates should focus their strongest attention to coming into 2020).

Going on to Electoral Strategy though, assuming Trump wins Florida again (which is leaning red), all he would really need to realistically do to retain the presidency is to keep at least two of the following: Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Wisconsin recently held an election for a vacant state Supreme Court seat with surprisingly large turnout, and the conservative candidate won by a pretty fair margin. Admittedly, PA does have the chance of going back to blue given the slimness of the 2016 election and the Democratic wins there in the 2018 midterms, but they also just had a recent state election where they did vote blue. That is largely because the Democrat that won is a military veteran with blue collar appeal (aka a strong moderate). That's where I have my apprehension as to whether PA is starting to lean blue again or not. Michigan, however, is probably the strongest toss up, however, but once again, the economy and rise of manufacturing jobs (as promised) may keep them with Trump, but it is pretty uncertain right now.

If you want my honesty as to who has the strongest chance of beating Donald Trump, it's Joe Biden, largely because of that blue collar and suburban appeal (even with the #MeToo drama going on, which is kinda stupid but that's a story for another day). However, I do agree that Bernie is the strongest Democrat candidate going into the primaries. I strongly disagree that he has an 80% win rate though, and here's where I would amend that. I would put him in the low 50s in that I would edge Bernie (given if Trump loses one out of the 3 states in the trifecta I mentioned earlier, he's gonna be in serious trouble), but I think that contentiously it's gonna be even closer than 2016.

Good points, the strongest of which is that Trump is an incumbent— and believe me, I don’t see Trump as a weak politician; I see him as an extremely strong one.

But he’s stronger as a campaigner, weakeron keeping his promises. His weakness in 2020 is going to be that he largely has gone back on promises. People are dealing with worse healthcare situations despite having Republicans in all arms of government. Average wages have not gone up. Life expectancy continues to decline. Despite all the talk of the opioid crisis nothing’s been done about it against big pharma. The swamp was not drained (and many Trump voters detest Bolton etc.) and Trump IS extremely chummy with Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia. We are escalating with Russia, not getting along— closer to nuclear war now than ever. Etc etc

I think Bernie will have a very good chance of flipping all 3 of those states, and many red states. I think that the electoral map at the end of that scenario is not going to look like the Clinton version where all or even a majority of the rural areas are red.

As for Biden— Biden has all the substantive weaknesses Hillary has and more. Trump will take Biden over the rails on NAFTA and TPP. He’ll say that this dumb ass voted for the Iraq war and sent so many of our boys to their graves. He’ll call uncle joe the servant of credit card companies (and this will be true...) and Obama’s sidekick. Biden is a candidate who is extremely susceptible to substantive critique from the left, and extremely susceptible to the type of campaigning that let Trump beat Hillary and the entire GOP field.

Sidenote: Trump is subserviant to Israel ("The Jews")? Dude, be careful with going into that territory, I'd presume you're not an anti-semite. It's one thing to disagree with Israeli government policy, but it's a whole different territory to go on the lines of Trump unquestioningly obeying "The Jews." That's dicey and I'd watch it.

Note: I clearly meant that not as my statement but as a sample statement from online Trump voters.

Not my thoughts, there’s.

 

[TheValkyries]

Skimming through I just want to say I hate the words “swing states” and also that the sitting president has no positive impact on the overall strength economy during their tenure.

Despite people hating the idea of regulated markets people sure love to think that the president can directly dictate the success of those markets.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Well Trump has the Incumbent's Advantage and also the economy is doing well under him so he will inevitably get credit for this.

If a wet bag like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris gets the nomination consider the Trump 2020 win sealed.

 

[termi]

fwiw trump's approval ratings are pretty terrible for an incumbent under a good economy, dont recall the exact statistic but i believe it's stagnated around 40% for quite a while now. while the country looks to be a little softer on him than it was a few years ago (he did turn out to be nothing more than another establishment puppet instead of the maverick some centrists mightve feared after all), plenty of people still hate him and want him gone. it's honestly just a matter of the dems running somebody who isnt too easy to take down like biden/warren and actually campaigning in the rust belt like they shouldve done last election. of course it's easy to say that trump is on the back foot now but he does know how to tear in on someone so who knows what'll happen, it's hard to tell.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Yup, we’re in an era of populist vigor erupting around the 1st world from half a century of market austerity. Analysts would be wiser to be extremely skeptical of any common sense or standard models they may have. They were wrong about how well Bernie would do. They were wrong about every event they thought would end Trump. They were wrong about who would be the President. They were wrong about so many populist surges in Europe.

A lot of progressive media got it right predicting those outcomes at every turn.

The establishment’s lack of understanding of populism is astounding.