Predicting the 2020 Dem nominee

[vcczar 31]

Chance of Nomination:

31% - Buttigieg

30% - Sanders

20% - Biden

5% - Harris, O'Rourke, Warren

1% - Booker, Castro, Gravel, Yang

0% - Everyone else

[Actinguy 49]

Sanders 45% (and 0% of winning the general)
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 25%
Biden 5%

[Patine 66]

28 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sanders 45% (and 0% of winning the general)
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 25%
Biden 5%

If we lived in more rational times, when people thought about their vote instead of voting on instinct, fears, stereotypes, sugary, unrealistic promises and so readily believed flimsy lies, easily debunked myths, and urban legends, any of the main candidates (except maybe Harris and possibly Warren and Yang) would mop the floor with Trump. In fact, Trump almost certainly wouldn't even be the incumbent in such times.

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

Biden 45 %

Sanders 35 %

Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke 5 % each

 

[Actinguy 49]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

If we lived in more rational times, when people thought about their vote instead of voting on instinct, fears, stereotypes, sugary, unrealistic promises and so readily believed flimsy lies, easily debunked myths, and urban legends, any of the main candidates (except maybe Harris and possibly Warren and Yang) would mop the floor with Trump. In fact, Trump almost certainly wouldn't even be the incumbent in such times.

Yes, I agree that if we lived in a world where Trump could not get elected, then Trump would not be elected.  

However, having established the actual world that we live in, I'm backing the candidate I think is most capable of beating him.

[Patine 66]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yes, I agree that if we lived in a world where Trump could not get elected, then Trump would not be elected.  

However, having established the actual world that we live in, I'm backing the candidate I think is most capable of beating him.

You see, even though I believe that candidates like Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, even maybe Booker, have decent chances of clinches the nomination and maybe even winning the GE, I view these candidates as being non-contributory by nature to addressing and tackling the United States' most pressing problems and issues, and thus, beyond the glow of ousting the Orange Monster from the White House, I feel their victories would not be THAT MUCH to celebrate in the long term. Therein lays the problem I see.

[vcczar 31]

11 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Sanders 45% (and 0% of winning the general)
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 25%
Biden 5%

What do you think the PV and EV would be in a Sanders vs Trump matchup? 

I had Trump winning the EV 278-260, but Sanders winning the PV. Here's my map I made a few weeks ago: https://www.270towin.com/maps/dQ79v

I think Sanders wins if he can take Virginia. 

[Actinguy 49]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

What do you think the PV and EV would be in a Sanders vs Trump matchup? 

I had Trump winning the EV 278-260, but Sanders winning the PV. Here's my map I made a few weeks ago: https://www.270towin.com/maps/dQ79v

I think Sanders wins if he can take Virginia. 

I haven't gamed it out yet, I likely won't do that until we know for sure who the nominees will be.

But I truly believe that even those Republicans who are truly tired of Trump and open to a Democrat instead are going to hear "THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING!" and get scared back into the pro-Trump line.

I think a moderate who doesn't have Hillary's baggage of decades of high visibility is exactly how we take down Trump.  And then if people want to unseat that moderate in four years for their man/woman of the people rabble rouser of choice, so be it.  But the kitchen is on fire, and people are complaining they don't like the curtains.  We can go curtain shopping later.  First, we need to put out the fire.

[Herbert Hoover 7]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I haven't gamed it out yet, I likely won't do that until we know for sure who the nominees will be.

But I truly believe that even those Republicans who are truly tired of Trump and open to a Democrat instead are going to hear "THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING!" and get scared back into the pro-Trump line.

I think a moderate who doesn't have Hillary's baggage of decades of high visibility is exactly how we take down Trump.  And then if people want to unseat that moderate in four years for their man/woman of the people rabble rouser of choice, so be it.  But the kitchen is on fire, and people are complaining they don't like the curtains.  We can go curtain shopping later.  First, we need to put out the fire.

I fully agree. This was my reasoning for supporting Beto. 

[vcczar 31]

18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I haven't gamed it out yet, I likely won't do that until we know for sure who the nominees will be.

But I truly believe that even those Republicans who are truly tired of Trump and open to a Democrat instead are going to hear "THE SOCIALISTS ARE COMING!" and get scared back into the pro-Trump line.

I think a moderate who doesn't have Hillary's baggage of decades of high visibility is exactly how we take down Trump.  And then if people want to unseat that moderate in four years for their man/woman of the people rabble rouser of choice, so be it.  But the kitchen is on fire, and people are complaining they don't like the curtains.  We can go curtain shopping later.  First, we need to put out the fire.

Apparently, 20% of Bernie supporters said they'll vote for Trump over even Elizabeth Warren. I don't know how many of these also voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016. The question then is, do establishment Democrats vote for Trump over Sanders. My answer is, I don't think so. I don't think they're bombthrowers like a lot of my fellow Sanders supporters are (unfortunately). In this sense, I think there is a way that Trump can win. I think he wins the states I have on that map regardless. There is the possibility that Sanders drains the Trump voters that voted for Trump just because he was anti-establishment. Sanders would be wise to pick a VP that isn't a Socialist--someone young and charismatic--maybe Buttigieg or O'Rourke or Abrams. 

[Actinguy 49]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Apparently, 20% of Bernie supporters said they'll vote for Trump over even Elizabeth Warren. I don't know how many of these also voted for Trump over Clinton in 2016. The question then is, do establishment Democrats vote for Trump over Sanders. My answer is, I don't think so. I don't think they're bombthrowers like a lot of my fellow Sanders supporters are (unfortunately). In this sense, I think there is a way that Trump can win. I think he wins the states I have on that map regardless. There is the possibility that Sanders drains the Trump voters that voted for Trump just because he was anti-establishment. Sanders would be wise to pick a VP that isn't a Socialist--someone young and charismatic--maybe Buttigieg or O'Rourke or Abrams. 

Yes, I agree that there is a component of Bernie supporters who will vote for Trump if they can't vote for Bernie, and maybe an even larger component of them that will stay home in that scenario.  But I'd counter that there is an equal or larger group of Republicans/moderates who hate Trump but are terrified of Bernie even more, so these people likely all cancel each other out.

Also, the "or else I'll vote for Trump!" is such a blatantly evil threat at this point that it reflects poorly on Sanders as their candidate of choice.

[WVProgressive 4]

I don't know where the idea that there's this large (let alone election decidingly large) group of "moderate" conservatives and anti-Trump republicans, I've only seen people like Bill Kristol, or Pete McCloskey (er, William Weld, I mean) people who are out of touch with the concerns of everyday people, they went to ivy league schools, and got a job in business or media, because they had family, or friends there, but they really can't help it I guess, they were born with a silver-spoon in their mouth, much like Trump actually, who was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Another thing, it's not that they actually disagree with his policies, the only things they disagree with him on is trade, and the fact that they dislike how brash he is with his rhetoric, for the most part, they like everything else, from imperialism, to taxes, they only wish he was a bit more well spoken when he says that regime change, and kickbacks to the rich are good things. To go back to the "The kitchen is on fire" metaphor, electing a "moderate" to fix what Trump has done, is like hiring the guy who came in and sprayed Butane all over your kitchen to put out the fire, sure he technically didn't start the fire, but he did make it far easier for the fire to start and spread.

[Patine 66]

19 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I don't know where the idea that there's this large (let alone election decidingly large) group of "moderate" conservatives and anti-Trump republicans, I've only seen people like Bill Kristol, or Pete McCloskey (er, William Weld, I mean) people who are out of touch with the concerns of everyday people, they went to ivy league schools, and got a job in business or media, because they had family, or friends there, but they really can't help it I guess, they were born with a silver-spoon in their mouth, much like Trump actually, who was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Another thing, it's not that they actually disagree with his policies, the only things they disagree with him on is trade, and the fact that they dislike how brash he is with his rhetoric, for the most part, they like everything else, from imperialism, to taxes, they only wish he was a bit more well spoken when he says that regime change, and kickbacks to the rich are good things. To go back to the "The kitchen is on fire" metaphor, electing a "moderate" to fix what Trump has done, is like hiring the guy who came in and sprayed Butane all over your kitchen to put out the fire, sure he technically didn't start the fire, but he did make it far easier for the fire to start and spread.

This is something I definitely agree with. Though, I'm not sure a dedicated opponent of the Plutocratic Oligarchy that controls U.S. (and many other nation's) governments can take government through the easily rigged, corrupted, and controlled (and anachronistic) electoral system said Plutocrats decide, or at least approve of, all U.S. Presidents going into office anyways. I think the deck is stacked against candidates who want to make REAL, MEANINGFUL change to the broken, corrupt system - be they on the left-wing, like Sanders, or Kucinich, or on the right-wing, like Ron Paul. They're all institutionally screwed...

[SirLagsalott 0]

I'll rank all the candidates on Wikipedia in order of who I think will be most likely to get the nomination, at least judging by how things look now.

1. Buttigieg

2. Harris

3. Swalwell

4. Sanders

5. Booker

6. Biden

7. Yang

8. Castro

9. Williamson

10. Gillibrand

11. O'Rourke

12. Warren

13. Moulton

14. Messam

15. Inslee

16. Klobuchar

17. Gabbard

18. Ryan

19. Hickenlooper

20. Gravel (he literally plans to withdraw before the primaries)

[vcczar 31]

3 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

I'll rank all the candidates on Wikipedia in order of who I think will be most likely to get the nomination, at least judging by how things look now.

1. Buttigieg

2. Harris

3. Swalwell

4. Sanders

5. Booker

6. Biden

7. Yang

8. Castro

9. Williamson

10. Gillibrand

11. O'Rourke

12. Warren

13. Moulton

14. Messam

15. Inslee

16. Klobuchar

17. Gabbard

18. Ryan

19. Hickenlooper

20. Gravel (he literally plans to withdraw before the primaries)

Swalwell at #3? He's getting 1% of the vote at most. I say this only because you are ranking this based off how things look now. 

[Actinguy 49]

14 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

I don't know where the idea that there's this large (let alone election decidingly large) group of "moderate" conservatives and anti-Trump republicans, 

Well, I used to be one.  I was a passionate W Bush supporter, and voluntarily deployed to Iraq because I believed in what he was trying to do there.  I backed Obama in 2008 only because Sarah Palin was simply too dumb to be a heartbeat away from the President, and then backed him again in 2012 as I'd become convinced that gay marriage needed to be legalized.  But I entered into 2016 fully expecting to back "Jeb!"

But then Donald Trump happened, and I went running into Hillary Clinton's arms.

[Patine 66]

9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Well, I used to be one.  I was a passionate W Bush supporter, and voluntarily deployed to Iraq because I believed in what he was trying to do there.

Out of curiosity, what REALLY did you think he was trying to do there, other than enrich big contracting, oil, and armaments corporations his father and Cheney had strong ties to?

[Actinguy 49]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Out of curiosity, what REALLY did you think he was trying to do there, other than enrich big contracting, oil, and armaments corporations his father and Cheney had strong ties to?

Regime change.  Saddam Hussein was killing his own civilians.  

It's easy to say "not our problem" and turn the other way.  Or to say "but didn't we also kill his civilians?"  

But blood is on our hands either way.  Choosing not to act is still a choice with consequences that we are responsible for. 

At least we were TRYING to make it better.

[SirLagsalott 0]

8 hours ago, vcczar said:

Swalwell at #3? He's getting 1% of the vote at most. I say this only because you are ranking this based off how things look now. 

I changed my mind about ranking method right after writing that. My mistake. 

[Patine 66]

6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Regime change.  Saddam Hussein was killing his own civilians.  

It's easy to say "not our problem" and turn the other way.  Or to say "but didn't we also kill his civilians?"  

But blood is on our hands either way.  Choosing not to act is still a choice with consequences that we are responsible for. 

At least we were TRYING to make it better.

So, what about Saudi Arabia, Chile (under Pinochet), Zaire (under Mputo), Iran (under the Shah), South Vietnam, or Guatemala? Oh, I forgot. Those were allies, and that makes them slaughtering there own people alright - in fact they have to be given arms, support, and protection from international consequences to do so...

[Actinguy 49]

Just now, Patine said:

So, what about Saudi Arabia, Chile (under Pinochet), Zaire (under Mputo), South Vietnam, or Guatemala? Oh, I forgot. Those were allies, and that makes them slaughtering there own people alright - in fact they have to be given arms, support, and protection from international consequences to do so...

Ha.  I was about as low ranking as you can get.  Nobody was asking my advice about which evil we could fight in the moment, given that we don’t have the resources to fight all evil everywhere at once.

 

Its easy to play “what about!” all day.  But people in leadership positions don’t have that convenience.  They have to actually make decisions.

[Patine 66]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Ha.  I was about as low ranking as you can get.  Nobody was asking my advice about which evil we could fight in the moment, given that we don’t have the resources to fight all evil everywhere at once.

 

Its easy to play “what about!” all day.  But people in leadership positions don’t have that convenience.  They have to actually make decisions.

If you're going to fight evil, one should at least look more genuine than the obvious corporate lobby ulterior motives and the need to lie through one's teeth to Congress and alienate traditional allies that was Iraq (a tyrant propped up less than 15 years before by the U.S. anyways as a proxy to fight the Ayatollah).

[WVProgressive 4]

8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Well, I used to be one.  I was a passionate W Bush supporter, and voluntarily deployed to Iraq because I believed in what he was trying to do there.  I backed Obama in 2008 only because Sarah Palin was simply too dumb to be a heartbeat away from the President, and then backed him again in 2012 as I'd become convinced that gay marriage needed to be legalized.  But I entered into 2016 fully expecting to back "Jeb!"

But then Donald Trump happened, and I went running into Hillary Clinton's arms.

Okay, so that makes one, this changes everything.

[Reagan04 19]

3 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

Okay, so that makes one, this changes everything.

Well I'm not a moderate but I'm absolutely an Anti-Trump Republican that would vote for Biden, Klobuchar, Yang

[vcczar 31]

38 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well I'm not a moderate but I'm absolutely an Anti-Trump Republican that would vote for Biden, Klobuchar, Yang

Why wouldn't you vote for Buttigieg or O'Rourke. They're ideologically similar. O'Rourke has an even more moderate record than Biden, actually.