Bernie Sanders Question

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't know who the Democrats might run, but I do know that Trump ran the table against at least 15 other Republicans and Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats underestimate him again and bring anything less than a Grade-A rockstar to the table, I suspect they'll lose by an even bigger margin than in 2016.

Democrats don't need to bring a rockstar. They need to bring someone with a pulse and hope the media doesn't repeat the same mistakes it did last time and hope Trump isn't carried on a tide of continued economic stability.

That's the worst possible thing the Democrats could do. I agree with Cinepro on this one. Historically, incumbents are hard to depose, and with the GOP being galvanized and if the economy appears to be doing well it's going to be a tough go. The GOP clearly doesn't give a crap about injecting cheap money into the system so it's very possible the economy will be feeling good, even though it's a precarious situation.

The Democrats are going to need to field someone who can charismatically go toe to toe with Trump and his horse crap. The kinds of people the Democrats don't want to field going into 2020:

1) A White woman. Elizabeth Warren couldn't be a worse choice outside of fielding Hillary Clinton again. They'll lose the Black vote, and the Democrats will be unenthusiastic going to the polls.

2) A male Hispanic. They'll lose the Black vote, White Democrats will pay lip service to his diversity, but won't be energized because there's not a lot of virtuosity to cash.

3) A White male. They'll lose the Black vote, White Democrats will nominally support him because of mental gymnastics, but Hispanics will be lethargic.

4) Any other ethnic male that's not Black. I don't think the base would know how to feel connected to him.

5) Any other ethnic female that's not Black. This one could prove to be interesting along the lines of 2008 Obama. He was kind of outside the box (I thought he would've ran in 2016 after Hillary Clinton got the nod), and really tapped into how ready the Democrats were for something different. But truth be told, unless she's hot crap and super charismatic it's unlikely this would be seriously considered within the DNC.

The kinds of candidates they want to field:

1) A Black male. Mmm... Maybe. I can't really think of one with the Obama centrist and likeability that's getting any headlines right now. But I could the DNC supporting a nomination, he'd get strong White support, excellent Black bloc voting, decent Hispanic support, and probably decent 'other' ethnic support. He would be dangerous for the GOP.

2) Black female. damned OPRAH WINFREY AND SHE WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020. If Trump can do it Oprah hits all the American Dream Candidate boxes. She's Black. She's a She. She's famous. She's beloved by WHITE WOMEN, Blacks, you name it. In one fell swoop America could show the world that it's not *fill-in-the-blank*'ist. Done and damned done.

- Doc

eta: Could you imagine Oprah stumping for Congressional and Senate seats? She'd be rock star and her tour would be nuts. Can't miss with Oprah, yo.

[_EAllusion]

Uh, obviously the Democrats would be smarter to pick someone who is popular than someone is not. Because, duh. But the idea that Trump is such a formidable candidate that they better have an electric candidate or they are toast is way off. First and most importantly, there will only be nominal differences between the potential candidates they could pick in terms of their level of support. The reason Trump is president right now is because people will vote for anything if it has the right letter after their name. Second, Trump is a terrible candidate as far as these things go. Dude just keeps failing upward. "Best come correct" against old Glass Joe on the other side seems to be buying into certain media commentators getting high on their own supply.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Uh, obviously the Democrats would be smarter to pick someone who is popular than someone is not. Because, duh. But the idea that Trump is such a formidable candidate that they better have an electric candidate or they are toast is way off. First and most importantly, there will only be nominal differences between the potential candidates they could pick in terms of their level of support. The reason Trump is president right now is because people will vote for anything if it has the right letter after their name. Second, Trump is a terrible candidate as far as these things go. Dude just keeps failing upward. "Best come correct" against old Glass Joe on the other side seems to be buying into certain media commentators getting high on their own supply.

Democrats don't need to bring a rockstar. They need to bring someone with a pulse

Pick one.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Uh, obviously the Democrats would be smarter to pick someone who is popular than someone is not. Because, duh. But the idea that Trump is such a formidable candidate that they better have an electric candidate or they are toast is way off. First and most importantly, there will only be nominal differences between the potential candidates they could pick in terms of their level of support. The reason Trump is president right now is because people will vote for anything if it has the right letter after their name. Second, Trump is a terrible candidate as far as these things go. Dude just keeps failing upward. "Best come correct" against old Glass Joe on the other side seems to be buying into certain media commentators getting high on their own supply.

Democrats don't need to bring a rockstar. They need to bring someone with a pulse

Pick one.

- Doc

I think you need to read the word "need" as many times as is necessary to resolve whatever contradiction you think you found. Cinepro's post argues that Democrats need a rockstar to win because the Trump train is bearing down on them. I say, nah, they don't need a rockstar. Probably anyone will do. You argue that having someone very popular is good. I restrain myself from exclaiming Jesus Christ! and agree that yeah, having a more popular candidate is better than having a less popular one.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I see EA t-t-t-triggered again. God forbid someone on the forum make an insightful and good post, like Cinepro did, because EA will gallop right in and find a way to make it wrong and offer the right solution.

Cinepro is right, EA. You are wrong.

The Democrats better bring a rockstar. They need a rockstar. Putting anyone up as their nominee who just has 'a pulse' is begging to make Trump a two-term President.

Let me make this very clear since you need it.

You. Are. W-R-O-N-G.

*gasp*

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I see EAllusion t-t-t-triggered again. God forbid someone on the forum make an insightful and good post, like Cinepro did, because EAllusion will gallop right in and find a way to make it wrong and offer the right solution.

Cinepro is right, EAllusion. You are wrong.

The Democrats better bring a rockstar. They need a rockstar. Putting anyone up as their nominee who just has 'a pulse' is begging to make Trump a two-term President.

Let me make this very clear since you need it.

You. Are. W-R-O-N-G.

*gasp*

- Doc

Let's square away the banal observation that having the best possible candidate is the best way to win, because of bloody course that's true. You might as well assert that Democrats should nominate someone who will get more votes. What evidence do you have that Trump is a particularly strong candidate that requires a very strong candidate for him to have any realistic chance of losing? And how does that evidence square with the fact that he's the least popular president in the history of measuring presidential popularity and has never done particularly well in an election?

If you manage to get through that, how do you explain the fact that fundamentals models like Alan Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model can predict presidential election outcomes reliably within a couple of points if there is such variance in how individual candidates will perform?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Bernie Sanders has a pulse.

Bill de Blasio has a pulse.

Tom Perez has a pulse.

There you go. Field one of those three if you want to win the nomination because in EA's world a Democrat having a pulse wins him the Presidency.

Jesus, dude. How is it possible you're pathologically incapable of admitting you might have (I'll give you an out) misspoke?

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

dup

[_canpakes]

Bernie Sanders has a pulse.

Bill de Blasio has a pulse.

Tom Perez has a pulse.

There you go. Field one of those three if you want to win the nomination because in EA's world a Democrat having a pulse wins him the Presidency.

Hillary Clinton also had a pulse.

Gotta admit, although I like a lot of what Warren says and stands for, I don't believe that she could win a Presidential contest against Trump in 2020. I'd not be as pessimistic about someone like Gabbard (who does meet your #5 qualifications from your prior post).

[_EAllusion]

Bernie Sanders has a pulse.

Bill de Blasio has a pulse.

Tom Perez has a pulse.

There you go. Field one of those three if you want to win the nomination because in EAllusion's world a Democrat having a pulse wins him the Presidency.

Jesus, dude. How is it possible you're pathologically incapable of admitting you might have (I'll give you an out) misspoke?

- Doc

Yeah, I am saying all three of those people could plausibly win. I am claiming that there is a broad range of candidates that could realistically beat Trump and that there is no reason to believe that Trump is a particularly formidable candidate. I gave you two reasons why that might be true that you ignored with almost hilarious confidence that it's all crazy. The fact that Donald freaking Trump is the President of the United States should clue you in that I might just possibly could be right about the range of candidates that could win a presidential election, but nah. Fun thing is I'm just citing common wisdom in American political science as applied to this situation, and you interpret it as delusional arrogance.

Again, if Donald Trump is a particularly strong candidate, I'd like to know why he's the most unpopular president of the modern era even in good economic conditions and why he didn't do better in 2016. And if the quality of individual candidates in opposition parties in presidential elections matters so much, then why is it possible to predict how well they will do within a few points merely by looking at fundamental conditions that have nothing to do with who they are? Why isn't there more variance if individual differences in candidate quality matters that much?

In the Abramowitz prediction model, Barack Obama did slightly worse than fundamentals. Hillary Clinton did slightly better. If Obama was a great candidate and Clinton was a terrible one, then what gives? I think Cinepro significantly overestimates the need for individual candidates to be good in order to win because a lot of voter behavior isn't dependent on that. I think Cinepro is completely off the ranch to think of Trump a juggernaut of a candidate. The fact that he cites beating a ton of Republicans in the 2016 primary is a tell there. He seems to take that as a sign of strength - look at how many people he vanquished - rather than a weakness - look at how divided the field had to be for him to sneak through.