It's time to have a 2020 Presidential Election thread


I’d love to see Yang or Mayor Pete become a major player, but I think the folks who could make it happen will be afraid that it will be a vote for Biden or Harris.

2nd-tier candidates just aren’t going to be considered because the insurgent wing of the party wants to win at any cost right now, and against the establishment just as much as against the Republicans.
I think folks are underestimating how much anger there is among the young right now.




Anger, but is there focus? Who do they want as the nominee? Opinions are split among a bunch of possibilities and capturing that focus is the main battlefield for people like Bernie, Beto, Warren, Booty Judge, Yang, and maybe even Harris and Booker.


I think that:

  1. You struggle with data vs anecdote and
  2. You’re recycling your posts from 2016.


I’m totally charmed by Pete Buttigieg. I worry that he’s so young and only the mayor of a small town.


So, is his being gay an asset or a liability? I could see that going either way.


I suspect it’s an asset for the Democratic primary, and I’d like to think it’s a wash for the general. You might turn off some people, but you’ll get a lot of positive media coverage in exchange. The people who aren’t going to vote for a gay person are less likely to vote for a Democrat anyway.


It might be a wash in the Democratic Primary. Support for gay marriage is not universal among the Democratic base:

It’s not the case, however, that opposition to gay marriage is now limited to only a few demographic, regional or political groups. The PPRI survey found some opposition from geographic areas and parts of the electorate that you might expect to more strongly back same-sex unions. In California, Illinois and Maryland — all deep-blue states — about a quarter of people oppose same-sex marriage, as do 39 percent of blacks and 40 percent of conservative Democrats.

The version of the Democratic party on the internet is not the exact same proportions as those who vote, the actual base.


The question there is how opposed. From my time in the Dem appartus, a lot of the older organizers oppose gay marriage, but they don’t really care about the issue that much either way- and aren’t going to vote Republican over it. They just personally oppose it.

In a lot of cases it’s ignorance. When it came to HB2, after some explanation, they came around on it enough to oppose that at least.

There’s a difference between opposing gay marriage, and rabidly opposing gay marriage.


That’s a good point. I doubt we have many people in the Democratic party in the rabidly opposed category.

Still, the primaries are a menu with a whole lot of options. I like Mayor Pete a lot. But I don’t think he has a chance this time around. Most people think of ‘electability’ as the most important trait. He seems more of a fascinating long-shot.

I also think he’s a “the sky’s the limit” sort of candidate, and he could have a pretty interesting future. Maybe 12, 16 years from now, this is a whole different conversation.


There was some talk of Bill Clinton becoming First Husband in 2016… but the Butti-boomlet suggests a whole different flavor of First Husband. Wouldn’t that be a sight.

Anyway, count me among the intrigued. I’m only up to the first commercial break in his town hall vid but he’s terrific.


There’s more for than against, overall but in the swing states, don’t know, and supporting same-sex marriage does not mean an automatic Democratic vote either.


“These early polls are meaningless…”

Except they aren’t…

The upshot (pardon the pun) there? Biden and Bernie both looking very strong so far.


It’ll totally suck* if the nomination ends up being Biden v Bernie.

*Slight hyperbole, but still.


It’d be a least-desirable of possible outcomes from my perspective as a voter as well, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise, too.


At least the Bernbros would stop bitching about “stolen” nominations.


Shortly after Clintonistas stop blaming Bernie voters from the primary for losing the general.


The only good poll belongs to the L.A. Times. Everybody else was wrong when it mattered.



It’s obnoxious. Both groups.


The LA-Times/USC-Dornsife poll only polled national voters (not individual states or regions) and predicted a Trump popular vote victory by 3-4 percentage points. It did not predict electoral votes.

He lost by 2.9%.

That poll ended up being more inaccurate than many comparable national polls.

The polling failure of 2016 was pretty local, and based largely in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.