Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Democratic Victory Flow Chart

Democratic Victory Flow Chart  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Read the attached chart below to respond. Which potential Democratic candidates could follow this flow chart to victory if they secure the nomination?

    • Joe Biden
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Elizabeth Warren
    • Sherrod Brown
    • Kamala Harris
    • Cory Booker
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Julian Castro
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Stacey Abrams
    • Oprah Winfrey
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Al Franken
    • Joseph P. Kennedy III
    • Barack Obama (if he could have a 3rd term)
    • None of the above would pass this flow chart
      0
  2. 2. Do you think the criteria for victory on this flow chart is likely correct?

    • Yes, barring an impeachment trial or conviction for Trump or worse
    • No, one or more of those factors doesn't matter (comment below)
  3. 3. If the election were held today between Trump and Sanders (current frontrunner of active Democratic candidates), who would win?

    • Trump would win 270 EVs.
    • Sanders would win 270 EVs.


Recommended Posts

"Charisma" is a vague characteristic in real life, so to have it have the same level of importance as others doesn't seem realistic. Not to mention sexist, racist, homophobic, etc attitudes that can color how a candidate is perceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think "we have to excite the base" is a real problem in this election.  

Yes, in 2016, the base was not excited -- but that's because they didn't take the threat of Trump actually winning the election seriously.

Things are drastically different now.  We've seen that Trump actually can win, and we've seen how horrible his Presidency is.

The base is excited to defeat Trump, no matter who the candidate turns out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, even if a candidate is too moderate and uninspiring and even if he's a radical he could win.

Biden could, because despite being moderate and uninspiring, he has a relatively high appeal to Afroamericans since he's been an integral part of the Obama administration. On the other hand - he will most likely lose the a large part of the progressive voting base (including Bernie's supporters of course) which might, or might not, cost him the Rustbelt area. As a result, he might need to use Southern strategy (try to flip a few of the following: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, perhaps even Georgia, or still unlikely in 2020: Texas) in order to compensate for very little (I presume he will still do better than Hillary Clinton, although it isn't guaranteed) voter enthusiasm in the Rustbelt. Or pick a VP that has enough appeal to voters in the Rustbelt. It might not be easy, but if he makes a state like Texas competitive (which is rather unlikely before 2024 unless he nominate someone who appeals to Texans specifically, like Beto O'Rourke), then he'll most likely win the presidency.

Sanders also could, but he will have to take an entirely different route. Bernie will be able to get the progressive base riled up, and is a very inspiring candidate, despite his age, but will scare the traditional "moderate" democrats. Therefore, he will be more of a Rustbelt candidate. He will be able to excite the progressive base in the Rustbelt and will flip at least two, if not all Obama-era states. He might even be able to surprise and flip states states that a regular "moderate" wouldn't be able to, but this is uncertain. On the other hand, he will lose votes in the South, especially in the Deep South but also in Texas. Even if he chooses a Southern VP his chances to flip states in the south aren't the best.

 

I think that two candidates which will be more of a compromise between progressives and establishment will be Elisabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, although neither of them will excite the progressive base as Sanders does, but on the other hand they will not lose as much votes as Sanders from "moderates". I think they're the compromise candidates the diagram seems to refer to.

 

Also, I think it also depends on the Trump base. Even if he has a low approval rating, he can still win if he'll be able to rile his base as much as he did before. If he won't be able to rile them up again, I doubt he will a second term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I don't think "we have to excite the base" is a real problem in this election.  

Yes, in 2016, the base was not excited -- but that's because they didn't take the threat of Trump actually winning the election seriously.

Things are drastically different now.  We've seen that Trump actually can win, and we've seen how horrible his Presidency is.

The base is excited to defeat Trump, no matter who the candidate turns out to be.

Running on what you're not, isn't a winning strategy. Not suggesting you're saying otherwise, just pointing out that running on the idea you can win an election with "Trump is bad, vote for us" isn't a good idea, people need more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Running on what you're not, isn't a winning strategy. Not suggesting you're saying otherwise, just pointing out that running on the idea you can win an election with "Trump is bad, vote for us" isn't a good idea, people need more.

That's why I think Sanders has the best chances, despite being a progressive. He's one of the few (if not the only one so far) who have a real platform and an ideology to run on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very first bubble mixes 'yes' and 'no' up, doesn't it?

If Trump's approval rate is above 50% he should get the 270 EVs more likely. Perhaps I get it totally wrong, but it seems a bit weird to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

The very first bubble mixes 'yes' and 'no' up, doesn't it? 

If Trump's approval rate is above 50% he should get the 270 EVs more likely. Perhaps I get it totally wrong, but it seems a bit weird to me. 

If Trump's approval rating is NOT below 50%, that means it's 50% or above. It's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

The very first bubble mixes 'yes' and 'no' up, doesn't it?

If Trump's approval rate is above 50% he should get the 270 EVs more likely. Perhaps I get it totally wrong, but it seems a bit weird to me.

lmao. Perhaps in the case of Trump more voters vote for him when they less approve of him? XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

If Trump's approval rating is NOT below 50%, that means it's 50% or above. It's correct.

For some reason I got confused in the first time I read it, and then read it right during the second time.

Afterwards @Conservative Elector 2 noted it, then I read it for the third time to think it's incorrect, again. 

Later, you corrected him and I read it for the fourth time, to find that it is correct once more.

Why are my eyes betraying me? XS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

Running on what you're not, isn't a winning strategy. Not suggesting you're saying otherwise, just pointing out that running on the idea you can win an election with "Trump is bad, vote for us" isn't a good idea, people need more.

I'm saying that I  think....or at least, jesus christ, I HOPE....that, whoever wins the Democrat nomination will get the Democrat votes in the general election.  In 2016, I think Democrats felt safe either staying home or voting third party because they didn't think there'd be a consequence to not "selling out" and voting for Hillary.  They were wrong.

But they know that now.  So...whether it's Biden or Bernie or Brown or Booker or Buttigieg or anyone else with a B name...I hope there's less of "that candidate doesn't 100% agree with me on my pet project issue so I can't back them in the general election", and more of "Trump is the worst, and literally anything else would be better than this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm saying that I don't think....or at least, jesus christ, I HOPE....that, whoever wins the Democrat nomination will get the Democrat votes in the general election.  In 2016, I think Democrats felt safe either staying home or voting third party because they didn't think there'd be a consequence to not "selling out" and voting for Hillary.  They were wrong.

But was it really Bernie supporters that cost hillary the election, when less of them voted for Trump, than Hillary supporters voted for McCain in 2008, or was it the fact that the clinton staffers, were mooks.

 

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

"that candidate doesn't 100% agree with me on my pet project issue so I can't back them in the general election"

Well the opposition to Hillary (from the left I should clarify) was more along the lines of "That woman, along with almost all of both houses of congress, as well as, George Bush, and his administration, is directly responsible for the deaths of more than a million innocent Iraqis, and pushes for policies that hurt the lives of many, both in America, and globally, and I can't bring myself vote for her". (Also I wouldn't call universal single payer healthcare a "pet-project" ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

But was it really Bernie supporters that cost hillary the election, when less of them voted for Trump, than Hillary supporters voted for McCain in 2008, or was it the fact that the clinton staffers, were mooks.

 

Well the opposition to Hillary (from the left I should clarify) was more along the lines of "That woman, along with almost all of both houses of congress, as well as, George Bush, and his administration, is directly responsible for the deaths of more than a million innocent Iraqis, and pushes for policies that hurt the lives of many, both in America, and globally, and I can't bring myself vote for her". (Also I wouldn't call universal single payer healthcare a "pet-project" ;))

You don't like Hillary, fine, got it.  I was a Hillary supporter but I agree she should not run in 2020.

I'm going to like my candidate in 2020, and you're going to like yours, and that's okay.  That's what primaries are for - especially now that super delegates are significantly less influential.

I'm only hoping that, whoever the 2020 candidate is...whether it's my candidate, yours, or someone else's...that we can rally around them as our only hope to stop Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this flowchart. As far as I can tell, Sanders is the front runner at this point. I also think he's the strongest Dem candidate of those who have announced.

But any candidate is going to get hammered by Trump. You can't take their *current* approval rating, it's what it's at after a year of attacks. Similar with Trump. His approval rating will depend on various things. At this point, Trump's approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this point in his first term, but Reagan won a landslide victory in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

If Trump's approval rating is NOT below 50%, that means it's 50% or above. It's correct.

Thanks now I get it hahah

2 hours ago, Gladius Aeneus said:

For some reason I got confused in the first time I read it, and then read it right during the second time.

Afterwards @Conservative Elector 2 noted it, then I read it for the third time to think it's incorrect, again. 

Later, you corrected him and I read it for the fourth time, to find that it is correct once more.

Why are my eyes betraying me? XS

It's a tricky one but now I get it, but anyway it is not that important I guess l ol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

"Charisma" is a vague characteristic in real life, so to have it have the same level of importance as others doesn't seem realistic. Not to mention sexist, racist, homophobic, etc attitudes that can color how a candidate is perceived.

Charisma is important. The more charismatic candidate seems to win.

Trump "beats" Hillary (I don't find him charismatic, but he has a personality cult)

Obama beats Romney and McCain

Bush beats Kerry and Gore, both boring and stuff.

Clinton beats Bush and Dole

Bush beats Dukakis

Reagan beats Carter and Mondale

Carter beats Ford, the latter had been athletic, but is rendered as a clumsy oaf.

Nixon beats Humphrey and McGovern

LBJ beats Goldwater 

JFK beats Nixon

Ike beats Stevenson

Truman beats Dewey, who was stiff as Romney or Kerry

FDR beats Hoover, Landon, Wilkie, and Dewey

In the age of film and TV, the more charismatic candidate has won. I'm wondering which Democrat can out-charisma, out-energy Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, vcczar said:

Charisma is important. The more charismatic candidate seems to win.

Trump "beats" Hillary (I don't find him charismatic, but he has a personality cult)

Obama beats Romney and McCain

Bush beats Kerry and Gore, both boring and stuff.

Clinton beats Bush and Dole

Bush beats Dukakis

Reagan beats Carter and Mondale

Carter beats Ford, the latter had been athletic, but is rendered as a clumsy oaf.

Nixon beats Humphrey and McGovern

LBJ beats Goldwater 

JFK beats Nixon

Ike beats Stevenson

Truman beats Dewey, who was stiff as Romney or Kerry

FDR beats Hoover, Landon, Wilkie, and Dewey

In the age of film and TV, the more charismatic candidate has won. I'm wondering which Democrat can out-charisma, out-energy Trump? 

Charisma is important, but I don't think it's as heavily weighted as these other more ideological areas, so it's equal weight doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I think charisma would come into play during the primaries more. And again, there are racial and sexist biases that would go into considering "charisma" that would need to be unpacked here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

Charisma is important, but I don't think it's as heavily weighted as these other more ideological areas, so it's equal weight doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I think charisma would come into play during the primaries more. And again, there are racial and sexist biases that would go into considering "charisma" that would need to be unpacked here.

Except that Charisma is pinnacle and apex attribute by far of any Populist politician. And since the rise of Populist politics around the world in the greatest instance since the 1920's to 1940's (which is NOT a good thing, in my opinion - it degrades the political tenor, dialogue, and ethics to nearly-restrained barbarism, and actively cuts any credibility or success to rational, sensible, thoughtful ideology). Like it or not, Charisma is tremendously important, even though I'd rater it not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like "does the candidate have a 50%+ favorability" should be rephrased to be more relative to Trump's approval. 

If Trumps approval is at or near his lower levels, based off of gallup and morning consult's state level polling, he'd be below 50 in over 30 states, including Texas, Georgia, and Ohio.

If a Democratic candidate needs 50%+ to win, Trump has already been re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democrats take back the White House and save America" lmao

I think the chart is too pessimistic. Hillary, who was not charismatic and was almost as unpopular as Trump would have won easily had she not neglected the working class and insulted the opposition (deplorables) and wasnt responsible for the death of several Americans in a foreign embassy, and didn't sell uranium to an enemy, and didn't acid wash a private email server while being investigated, and didn't launder charity money through the Clinton foundation, and didn't flip-flop every social issue, and didn't rig the DNC, and wasn't a war hawk, and wasn...

Lmao need I continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

"Democrats take back the White House and save America" lmao

I think the chart is too pessimistic. Hillary, who was not charismatic and was almost as unpopular as Trump would have won easily had she not neglected the working class and insulted the opposition (deplorables) and wasnt responsible for the death of several Americans in a foreign embassy, and didn't sell uranium to an enemy, and didn't acid wash a private email server while being investigated, and didn't launder charity money through the Clinton foundation, and didn't flip-flop every social issue, and didn't rig the DNC, and wasn't a war hawk, and wasn...

Lmao need I continue?

What does any of that have to do with the 2020 candidates? Do you think Hillary is running again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 4:46 PM, avatarmushi said:

I feel like "does the candidate have a 50%+ favorability" should be rephrased to be more relative to Trump's approval. 

If Trumps approval is at or near his lower levels, based off of gallup and morning consult's state level polling, he'd be below 50 in over 30 states, including Texas, Georgia, and Ohio.

If a Democratic candidate needs 50%+ to win, Trump has already been re-elected.

That's a bad chart. Look how many undecideds there are? Only 28% gave Buttigieg anything, for instance. The favorabilities will rise as they get name recognition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jnewt said:

What does any of that have to do with the 2020 candidates? Do you think Hillary is running again?

Hillary didn't meet most of those criteria and made all of those mistakes and almost beat him. Shouldn't be too hard for someone half as bad as her to beat Trump (not counting for the fact that hes incumbent now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Hillary didn't meet most of those criteria and made all of those mistakes and almost beat him. Shouldn't be too hard for someone half as bad as her to beat Trump (not counting for the fact that hes incumbent now)

Hoover and Carter were incumbents once. But those were days when Americans were actually more unforgiving of utterly failed Presidents who'd screwed up royally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...