US Presidential Election 2020

StringerBell

Forgot he was in the race, was he ever really?

The voter turnout thing is that it was not the same level as he mid terms I think and the worry that as usual the Democrats will leave it on the field by not getting enough votes to the polls.

If you believe the media is biased toward the left you can say that they are possibly pushing the low turnout angle to scare the voters into getting out to vote, worried that not enough people are turning out. Giving them that extra push.

If you believe the media is biased toward its bottom line then you can say that they will push a narrative of whatever is going to generate the most interest and a fear or worrying narrative is better for that then a everything in the garden is rosy narrative.

FreeThePants

Thstndoesnt add up either though - the democratic primaries in 2018 drew only 72,500 voters. Over four times as many voted in yesterday's democratic primary.

Red for Danger

rossie1977 wrote: »

Media will always pick on someone. Last election it was Hillary Clinton who overwhelmingly got negative press from the media while Sanders was mostly positive.

There was a media blackout of sanders in 2016 he had massive rallies all over the country far bigger than trumps, close to 30000 and not a word from msm.
Seeing their obvious biased reporting is what has given Sanders so many troupes on the ground.
On march 15th 3rd super tuesday, all the main networks covered all the main candidates speechs both dems and reps, Bernie Sanders had the biggest rally of all them in Phoenix Arizona, but it was if it never happened to the major networks.
Most networks had their cameras fixed on trumps empty podiums 30 mins before he came out.
Trump got 5 billions in free media in 2016, the heads of all the major networks say same thing when challenged about this " he's good for ratings"

StringerBell

FreeThePants wrote: »

Thstndoesnt add up either though - the democratic primaries in 2018 drew only 72,500 voters. Over four times as many voted in yesterday's democratic primary.

I didn't look into it tbh so I've no idea, wouldn't change my point either way really.

FreeThePants

StringerBell wrote: »

I didn't look into it tbh so I've no idea, wouldn't change my point either way really.

Frankly I think your last paragraph was quite accurate, but misses a wider point - they are interested in ratings, clicks and revenue streams, but the heads of these companies are considerably more interested in not seeing their taxes go up. That's beyond 'sell papers' capitalist democracy cynicism, it's oligarchical.

When they've sunk to the point of calling a guy who if he won would be the first Jewish president of the US, who lost many family members in the Holocaust, and his followers which have many Jewish people among them, nazis... there's a problem.

Manic Moran

FreeThePants wrote: »

Thstndoesnt add up either though - the democratic primaries in 2018 drew only 72,500 voters. Over four times as many voted in yesterday's democratic primary.

Overall, the numbers are down. The Democratic Primary NH total in 2016 was some 253,000. 2020 is looking at some 293,000. It may look like an increase, but bear with me.

New Hampshire has a semi-open primary. Independents, who make up almost half the state (The highest proportion of any State, I believe), may vote in the primary of any party. If you are registered to a party, you must vote for your own party.

Total registered figures are here: https://sos.nh.gov/NamesHistory.aspx
286,735 Democrats, 288,464 Republicans, 415,871 Independents.

Given that Trump is the de-facto Republican nominee, that means that a very large proportion of the 285,000 who voted in the Republican primary in 2016 when there was an actual race would have seen no point in voting in it again this year. As a result, Republican primary numbers have dropped this year, it's looking like under 150,000 voted in it. The overwhelming majority are probably registered Republicans, as they have no choice but to vote in their own party's primary.

That means that, in theory, there were some 130,000 'available' voters who voted Republican in 2016 who could now vote in the Democratic primary without affecting the overall state voter turnout numbers at all. But with no other show in town, the Democrats only attracted 40,000 of that 130,000. The rest stayed home.

Or, if you wish to look at it another way, out of a possible 684,606 strong voter pool eligible to vote in it. the Democrat primary attracted less than half.

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Overall, the numbers are down. The Democratic Primary NH total in 2016 was some 253,000. 2020 is looking at some 293,000. It may look like an increase, but bear with me.

It may look like Liverpool are leading the Premier League, but I'm going to explain to you now why that's not so, and why Manchester United are actually leading it.

Nah, I won't.

It looks like an increase because it is an increase.

Water John

The 3rd March is coming around soon, things will be a lot clearer then. Who has survived, even Nevada and South Carolina, before then. Where will Bloomberg be?
The New Hampshire primary was excellently run and watching the results come in was fascinating.

LuckyLloyd

Super Tuesday will clarify what role Bloomberg has to play. His whole strategy is centred on a good outing there. If he doesn’t make a breakthrough, then it’s a question of whether Biden or Warren can make any hay.

My guess is it will be Sanders vs Bloomberg as we approach the convention.

Hande hoche!

With the closeness of South Carolina to Super Tuesday, imagine anyone that's made it to the former will hang on till the third of March.
Will be very curious as to how Bloomberg performs in debates.

pixelburp

Honestly, were it not for this thread, I'd have forgotten Bloomberg was even in the race. Perhaps it's just the skew of the media I'm watching but I'm struggling to think of what exact impact Bloomberg has had on this race? Nor was he polling well beforehand iirc. The talk has been Sanders v Buttigieg, with Klobaucher surprising in third place. No narrative has mentioned Bloomberg, so why do people reckon he'll persist? Just cos he's rich with money to burn or is he reckoned to be a actual late Stormer?

Hande hoche!

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, were it not for this thread, I'd have forgotten Bloomberg was even in the race. Perhaps it's just the skew of the media I'm watching but I'm struggling to think of what exact impact Bloomberg has had on this race? Nor was he polling well beforehand iirc. The talk has been Sanders v Buttigieg, with Klobaucher surprising in third place. No narrative has mentioned Bloomberg, so why do people reckon he'll persist? Just cos he's rich with money to burn or is he reckoned to be a actual late Stormer?

I had to check there what his strategy was again, sit out the first four and then launch a heavy go on Super Tuesday.

Part of it is if there is no "main stream" alternative to Bernie emerging, there might be a panic towards him. The sheer abundance of funds may boost his appeal.

Fair point as regards the polling. Looking at some of the the later voting states the likes of Steyer is still getting some support. Usual caveats apply to that, looking back to polls less than a month ago had Biden leading in New Hampshire.

Water John

There is an opening for Bloomberg because the most important point for most Dems is electability. Who can beat Trump.
He has to take the ground presently occupied by, Buttigeig, Klobuchar and Biden.

Red for Danger

The Bloomberg thing is just the establishment and centrist needing a little time to accept that it's, Bernie's ,Ro kanna AOC's etc party now, soon enough they'll begin to accept it. Then we'll see how truthful all this "unity to beat trump" stuff is.
The msm are also going to have to accept that the power they once had has been greatly reduced. All their biased pro Washington reporting and spin gets called out day in day out by online and independent media.

Joe_ Public

Bloomberg is a former republican mayor, trump was a democrat who stole republican cloak to launch a bid for the WH. Beneath the surface they're not very different people and bloomberg, with help from powerful media allies, will play on that narrative that he will surely know best how to appeal to putative trump supporters. Its horrible to think there might be some logic in that, but plenty will fall for it i'm sure.

Red for Danger

Water John wrote: »

There is an opening for Bloomberg because the most important point for most Dems is electability. Who can beat Trump.
He has to take the ground presently occupied by, Buttigeig, Klobuchar and Biden.

Bloomberg hasnt a hope, he's currently day and night eating ice cream and petting dogs, wait till the bad starts to come out. This is mike Bloomberg so there is a **** tonne of bad. He's done some terrible interviews, recent ones that he has tried to bury , that would even sink trump

Water John

His, stop and frisk policy in black areas of NY is coming under the spotlight too.

eagle eye

Water John wrote:

His, stop and frisk policy in black areas of NY is coming under the spotlight too.

It is because like most you have it wrong.
It was disadvantaged areas and there are white neighbourhoods like that. Most of those neighbourhoods are Black and Hispanic though so he got loads of heat over it.
And there's two ways of looking at it. The idea was to get guns off the street and lower the murder rate. He successfully lowered the murder rate right through his 12 years in office.
I'm not saying that it was a very well worked out policy but the idea behind it was a good one.
Of course you can also look at it as not caring about Blacks and Hispanics. It was a big mistake on his part to not look at the potential consequences of putting this into action.

sid waddell

Would anything signify the descent of American democracy into a Russian style fake "democracy" more than a presidential "election" between two oligarchs?

Hande hoche!

eagle eye wrote: »

It is because like most you have it wrong.
It was disadvantaged areas and there are white neighbourhoods like that. Most of those neighbourhoods are Black and Hispanic though so he got loads of heat over it.
And there's two ways of looking at it. The idea was to get guns off the street and lower the murder rate. He successfully lowered the murder rate right through his 12 years in office.
I'm not saying that it was a very well worked out policy but the idea behind it was a good one.
Of course you can also look at it as not caring about Blacks and Hispanics. It was a big mistake on his part to not look at the potential consequences of putting this into action.

Part of it was he didn't defend himself particularly on those points. He just went for the apology to help move things along.

spacecoyote

From what I can gather Bloomberg is spending enormously in all if the states from Super Tuesday forward and hes jumped well up the polling in those states.

He never could qualify for early the debates as he said hed be self-financing and not require any donors, which was a pre-requisite.

I'm not sure what the logic is for debate qualification as things move forward. They'll have to change the rules or he technically wouldn't ever appear on the stage with the other dem candidates

Manic Moran

sid waddell wrote: »

It may look like Liverpool are leading the Premier League, but I'm going to explain to you now why that's not so, and why Manchester United are actually leading it.

Nah, I won't.

It looks like an increase because it is an increase.

Because Man U had a week without a fixture and Liverpool have so far played more games.

Bottom line: Voter turnout of those eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary NH in 2016: 57%. Voter turnout of those eligible to vote in the 2020 Democratic Primary: 42%. A 15% decrease.

Note how the New York Times has a headline "New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving".
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary-turnout.html

I shall give you some more numbers to demonstrate the relative problem.

Total voter turnout in 2016 was 539,000 out of 946,502. Total voter turnout in 2020 was 449,000/980,720, an overall decrease. However, to be more relevant to the discussion, from that one must subtract Republicans. They have no ability to influence on the D primary, they aren't allowed vote in it.

Fortunately, the figures are available. "New Hampshire primary turnout was good for Democrats — sort of." (Strange how they are putting qualifiers on these headlines, no?)
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21134438/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-turnout
"43 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in the state were independents, only slightly up from 40 percent in 2016"

In 2016, thus, 54% of registered Democrats voted in the primary. In 2020, the figure is 61%. Congrats, more Democrats by percentage are turning out. But it's not just Democrats who can vote either in the Democrat Primary or the Presidential election. The Independents are the determining factor in NH, especially since they almost number the Ds and Rs put together, and they can vote in the D primary: Their choice to vote or not vote must be reflected to show the true picture.

In 2016, some 212,000 Independents voted out of 360,600 registered. 58% turnout. The split was about 101,000 in the D primary, 111,000 in the R. Ergo, 28% of independents chose to vote in the D primary in 2016.

In 2020, some 125,000 independents voted in the D primary out of 415,900. 30%. The problem is that 30% is now also basically the voter turnout for independents as there wasn't much else for an independent to have a reason to vote for this time around.

That's 100,000 people who voted in 2016 and were eligible to vote in the Democratic Primaries who couldn't be arsed to vote in 2020. The single largest voting demographic in New Hampshire decided to stay at home this time instead of vote for their preferred Democratic nominee.

There aren't many ways of spinning that well.

briany

If Mike Bloomberg didn't have the gimmick of being insanely wealthy, he'd at least be a curiosity for being even more bland than Joe Biden.

Bloomberg and Biden have no message. Hillary had no message. Sanders has a message but it's a divisive one. If Biden or Bloomberg get the nomination, there'll be another mass disillusionment among potential democratic voters. If Hillary gets parachuted in, there'll be a civil war within the party. If Sanders gets it, he'll have to drag the Democratic establishment along with him kicking and screaming. They'll attempt to sabotage him.

Trump must be rubbing his hands together. Trump v Sanders amounts to an open left/right confrontation in America. The levels of vitriol would be off the scale. It'd be scary. I can already hear Trump referring to Sanders as B.S.

(Trump at rally)

"You people hear that stupid B.S. on CNN last night?"

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because Man U had a week without a fixture and Liverpool have so far played more games.

Liverpool are 38 points ahead of Manchester United with same number of games played, and 22 points clear of their nearest challenger.

38 is not far off the number of thousands of voters more who voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire in 2020 compared to 2016.

More = an increase.

It's entirely unsurprising that a Trump supporter would try to convince people that 253,000 is a higher number than 298,000. That's the way Trumpism works, lies about everything, even the size of a body of people, which is of course the first, most famous and most obvious lie of all, right at the start of his presidency back in January 2017.

And still Trump supporters peddle this stuff.

Manic Moran

sid waddell wrote: »

Liverpool are 38 points ahead of Manchester United with same number of games played, and 22 points clear of their nearest challenger.

38 is not far off the number of thousands of voters more who voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire in 2020 compared to 2016.

More = an increase.

And if you double that, it's still less than the number of thousands of voters who decided to stay at home this time around. Percentages are what count, not raw numbers, since those can go up on both sides. Indeed, the raw number of registered voters in the State also increased by 35,000. It's easy to get more numbers when more people are around. The trick is in convincing enough of the total population by percentage to come to your shindig.

I refer you again to the significant decrease in eligible voter turnout percentage. 100,000 people who voted last tune around and could have voted in the D primary this year, did not. They are not engaged.

Red for Danger

Sanders has taken the lead in Texas.

Water John

If the coloured vote sees Sanders as a candidate that would beat Trump, he'll be hard to stop getting the nomination.

It's mad what advertising can do.

We haven't seen a single Bloomberg debate, he hasn't been in the Iowa Causus nor New Hampshire primary and yet is second favourite for the nomination. He's not gonna be in the Nevada or South Carolina primaries, is he?

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

It's mad what advertising can do.

We haven't seen a single Bloomberg debate, he hasn't been in the Iowa Causus nor New Hampshire primary and yet is second favourite for the nomination. He's not gonna be in the Nevada or South Carolina primaries, is he?

He is getting a lot of airtime on my computer feed, I’ll say that much. All about how good he is, not about what he will do. No policy, just name recognition.

Interestingly, I’m also getting a surprising amount of Trump stuff as well, which I find surprisingly early.

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

He is getting a lot of airtime on my computer feed, I’ll say that much. All about how good he is, not about what he will do. No policy, just name recognition.

Sounds like a Democratic version of Trump with better verbal skills and ability in my ears.

pixelburp

Only thing I can think of is that he might be some type of stalking-horse? Have Bloomberg get Trump all riled up from someone richer and more successful than him, rather than focusing on the actual, potential opponents? Trump does seem incredibly brittle around the NY mayor, with his bitter little nicknames

briany

Nody wrote: »

Sounds like a Democratic version of Trump with better verbal skills and ability in my ears.

Bloomberg's willingness to mud-wrestle with Trump is not necessarily a boon. A lot of the people who are anti-Trump are dismayed with how he's undermined the position of POTUS with his bitter rhetoric. I'm sure there are also people who'd cheer someone who gives it back to Trump, but I doubt they're a workable majority.

As for policy, Trump had/has policies such as what Bannon called 'economic nationalism', or revitalising the faded industries of the American rust belt, or clamping down on illegal immigration. Policies that may not be realistic in the way Trump puts them, but still hugely popular with a subset of American society and to whom no other politician seemed to be addressing as directly in 2016. Unless Bloomberg adopts opposing policies of similar bombast or, indeed, adopts his own versions of what Trump is promoting, then he'll have a tough time getting elected. All the younger people in the states who are looking for real change are going to be hesitant to vote for Bloomberg who undoubtedly represents an America where they're no longer even pretending - the billionaires don't bother just pulling the strings anymore, but rather just jump right into the job.

eire4

Nody wrote: »

Sounds like a Democratic version of Trump with better verbal skills and ability in my ears.

He is not actually a real Democrat. He has over the years donated and supported Republicans to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. He is simply focused economically on making sure he can continue to hoard his wealth. He just is not into the guns and rampant hate that is so much part of the modern Republican party hence he is running as a Democrat. But this is a guy who is economically the ultimate corporate Democrat in other words he is good to go with the Friedmanite disaster capitalism that has seen income inequality balloon so much in the past few decades.

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

Only thing I can think of is that he might be some type of stalking-horse? Have Bloomberg get Trump all riled up from someone richer and more successful than him, rather than focusing on the actual, potential opponents? Trump does seem incredibly brittle around the NY mayor, with his bitter little nicknames

he uses nicknames with all the Dem front runners and tries to bait them.

I understand why many in mainstream media are loving that Bloomberg is doing it is because they are all in on the anyone but Bernie train.

Those abominations like Jennifer Rubin and all other tedious centerists don't seem to talk as much about it when Bernie fights back against Trump on twitter though,,,how odd...

pixelburp

Yeah, the hard on to hammer Sanders is tedious, so if his momentum continues it'll be interesting to see if it softens in light of fading challenges from Biden et al. I must dig out some of the debates because as much as I can picture and imagine Sanders' rhetoric in speeches, I don't recall his debating style and how he counters arguments. Not that that would be useful against Trump, who's not what you'd call a traditional debater anyway. Given his outward hubris with the impeachment result, the TV debates will be fascinating box office.

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, the hard on to hammer Sanders is tedious, so if his momentum continues it'll be interesting to see if it softens in light of fading challenges from Biden et al. I must dig out some of the debates because as much as I can picture and imagine Sanders' rhetoric in speeches, I don't recall his debating style and how he counters arguments. Not that that would be useful against Trump, who's not what you'd call a traditional debater anyway. Given his outward hubris with the impeachment result, the TV debates will be fascinating box office.

I think Trump would rather face Bloomberg on stage. He has so much more charisma and is able to connect with ordinary voters easier than Mike.
Bloomberg would win on policy ins and outs but sadly who cares about that?


Also stuff like sexism, racism which the Dems have rightfully called out Trump on,,,can you really hurt Trump on these issues... if its Bloomberg on stage when you look at all the skeletons in Bloomberg's closet?

Bernie is doing fine in these cluster **** Dem debates and was solid v Clinton on the one v one debates.

dinorebel

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, the hard on to hammer Sanders is tedious, so if his momentum continues it'll be interesting to see if it softens in light of fading challenges from Biden et al. I must dig out some of the debates because as much as I can picture and imagine Sanders' rhetoric in speeches, I don't recall his debating style and how he counters arguments. Not that that would be useful against Trump, who's not what you'd call a traditional debater anyway. Given his outward hubris with the impeachment result, the TV debates will be fascinating box office.

Not a hope Trump does any debates

pixelburp

dinorebel wrote: »

Not a hope Trump does any debates

Naw, Trump has kicked against the traditions of best every facet of American democracy, but there's no way he'll pass up a chance to be on TV. He's obsessed with ratings, attendance and presenting himself on screen, and his confidence / insecurity will demand he confronts his rival. I'd be genuinely shocked if Trump decides not to appear at the debates. Doesn't feel like it matches that compulsion for ratings.

looksee

It would not be a debate, it would be shout down and ramble. It would be a very strong presenter who could manage him on stage, it would probably end up with one of them walking off.

StringerBell

The problem with Bernie Sanders for a lot of the Democratic party is that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. Especially you would have to think the DNC would prefer he not represent the party because he is not a Democrat, he is an ideologue. This is not a criticism of him at all, just how I see it.

Water John

If Warren was leading, would she come under centerist pressure? Yes, she would.
It's corporate interests minding their interests, mainly.

Rjd2

StringerBell wrote: »

The problem with Bernie Sanders for a lot of the Democratic party is that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. Especially you would have to think the DNC would prefer he not represent the party because he is not a Democrat, he is an ideologue. This is not a criticism of him at all, just how I see it.

They say that, but if it really mattered a chap who was a Republican mayor and has donated huge sums to the GOP not so long ago would be ran out of town....

The hypocrisy of this ****show is for years we were told Bernie was a sexist, not a real Dem, not woke enough, but once Bloomberg comes calling those "principles" are ignored.

Example? Check out this corporate Dem stooge.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1228391041985916928

briany

Trump's just going to take out a figurative sledgehammer and attempt to batter his Democrat rival to political death with it. Name-calling, obtuse remarks, appealing to the lowest common denominator, ignorance, guff, spiel, bile. No matter who it is, Trump will put them on blast. Trump wants a political mud wrestle.

Trump might have a low approval rating but what is it voters are slow to approve of? His personal behaviour is clearly reprehensible for someone occupying the office of POTUS, but experts also seem to be saying that economic performance under his presidency has been strong, and he's going to take full credit for that, rightly or wrongly. Therefore the question is will voters say that while they may think he's a dickhe@d, he seems to be doing something right. It's nice to have a nice president, but nicer to have financial security.

I think Bernie Sanders is a good man with his heart in the right place. He would stand a fighting chance against Trump if he were to get the full backing of the Democrats, but that will probably never happen. There are certain things about American policy that never seem to change - you cannot criticise Israel, you cannot criticise Saudi, you cannot ask could military expenditure be less exorbitant, and you cannot challenge big pharma. I mean, you can do the things I listed, but doing so keeps you on the periphery and attacked in the media and you'll never get anywhere politically. America has lots of money in the kitty and could easily pay for the things Sanders is talking about by restructuring the budget, but sadly for that country and its people, that will likely not happen.

StringerBell

Rjd2 wrote: »

They say that, but if it really mattered a chap who was a Republican mayor and has donated huge sums to the GOP not so long ago would be ran out of town....

The hypocrisy of this ****show is for years we were told Bernie was a sexist, not a real Dem, not woke enough, but once Bloomberg comes calling those "principles" are ignored.

[/url]

Bloomberg is not an idealogue though, that's a different situation.

eire4

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloomberg is not an idealogue though, that's a different situation.

No he is just economically a right wing Friedmanite disaster capitalist who will not rock the corporate Democrats boat so they like him. Screw what is in the best economic best interests of the vast majority of Americans the corporate Democrats have no interest in that at all. That is fundamentally why they hate Bernie Sanders.

eire4

dinorebel wrote: »

Not a hope Trump does any debates

I would say there is a good chance your right. Although the one thing I will say is that the so called Presidential debates is in fact a perfect example of how the corrupt duopoly on power in DC works. Most Americans think it is some independent body that organizes fair and impartial debates. When in fact it is an actual company set up by the Republican and Democratic parties to act in cartel together to make sure outside voices have as hard a time as possible at getting on a national stage and they have obviously been very successful with it.

Water John

Good article here on why Biden's case is run. Failure to sweep South Carolina will be the end of the road IWT.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/joe-biden-donald-trump-democratic-primary-south-carolina

That opens a big space for Bloomberg. The Dems choice then is Bloomberg or Sanders. Corporitist versus the people.

sid waddell

Water John wrote: »

Good article here on why Biden's case is run. Failure to sweep South Carolina will be the end of the road IWT.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/joe-biden-donald-trump-democratic-primary-south-carolina

That opens a big space for Bloomberg. The Dems choice then is Bloomberg or Sanders. Corporitist versus the people.

Bloomberg has up to now faced a serious lack of scrutiny. Once that happens, it's not likely to go well for him. But the danger is that he has been working away in the background absolutely plastering the Super Tuesday states with advertising, and his online ads are good, very good. That works.

But Bernie Sanders beats everybody in a two way contest. The only other canidate who even comes close to him is Elizabeth Warren.

eagle eye

Trump leading the Daytona 500 field to the track in the Presidential vehicles.
He has made a lot of appearances at sporting events this year.

Manic Moran

Sadly, I was hoping they'd be gunning the limo. I'm sure it's got some HP under there. I bet the driver wanted to as well. "No, you can't do that. Can't give away how fast this thing goes..."