2020, the election campaigns have begun

[hazard]

With 21 seats up for the Republicans the Democrats have a very reasonable shot at achieving a super majority in the Senate just on those numbers alone. If the Democrats are more competent than the Republicans that could mean a whole raft of laws passed through very quickly.

Besides, if Trump doesn't get reelected and no Republican takes the presidency? You can bet that the various state prosecutions file suits the day after election day, to be unsealed and prosecuted the moment Trump's no longer in office. And not just for Trump, his entire family and most of the upper levels of his administration will be brought in either to testify or as suspects. And the Democrats would support this because it helps them politically to become the party of law and order and to use the Trump administration as the case study for why the Republicans aren't.

[Labster]

Your optimism is cute, Hazard, but not very likely. The Senate is very heavily gerrymandered by history itself. In Wyoming, you get one senator per ~300k people. In California, you get one senator per ~20M people. Two orders of magnitude. And if Democrats are going to be the urban party, then Republicans are going to win most rural, low population areas.

The map is not great. Mathematically it looks good, but without exceptional local candidates, Dem+2 seems like the most likely outcome based on fundamentals. Democrats pick up Maine, Colorado, and Arizona, and lose Alabama.

[hazard]

Oh, I'm not finding it likely, I'm saying it's possible.

I'd guess that the popular vote will lean Democratic to very Democratic, but given gerrymandering, including gerrymandering baked into the system due to states being their own super districts, it's much less certain how much that'll help.

[Black Aeronaut]

FYI, the information I was basing my commentary on is right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unite...redictions

The Democrats look to have an honest to god shot at this.

EDIT: Also, Labster, you make it sound like as though the Senate has never been in Democrat control. After all, they held control over the Senate from 2006 to 2012.

[Rajvik]

Unless the democrats succeed in impeaching Trump, Weld has about as much chance at the nomination as a snowcone in the hands of a hyperactive 5 year old at the county fair. Not that he is necessarily a bad person, but he won't fight the media and that is something the republicans want and need.

I don't see Biden surviving the democrat primary, and if he does, by some miracle, take the nomination, the Bernie supporters are going to go ballistic whether he gets it legitimately or not.

Also, Bernie, I believe, is older than Biden

[robkelk]

CBC Opinion: If the Democrats have any spine, they'll nominate Elizabeth Warren to take on Trump: Neil Macdonald

But then U.S. President Donald Trump himself blew the notion of electability to smithereens three years ago. It was foolish, in retrospect, to confidently predict, just because he behaved like a coarse, bragging, race-baiting serial liar and misogynist, that he would lose.

It is just as foolish right now to assume that someone too far to the left, or a woman, or a woman on the left, cannot pull off the same feat Trump managed.

That sort of thinking inevitably leads to only one place: Joe Biden. And sorry, fellow aging white men, but that amounts to offering up one rather conservative septuagenarian with surgically created hair to replace another. This is 2019.

I can't spot any flaws in Neil Macdonald's argument...

[Labster]

Well, one minor flaw is that Elizabeth Warren just turned 70 last week.  She's not old guard, but she is old.

That said, I'm backing Warren.  I like her ability to actually have plans, and be able to go into them to arbitrary detail.  I'm a bit of a policy wonk, so I like substance, even when I don't agree with it.  Actually, let me just give you an IRV ranking of everyone, which is the ballot I would cast if we actually did instant runoff voting.

1) Elizabeth Warren
2) Kamala Harris
3) Julián Castro
4) Jay Inslee
5) Cory Booker
6) Michael Bennet
7) Bernie Sanders
8) Pete Buttigieg
9) Joe Biden
10) Eric Swalwell
11) Bill de Blasio
12) Steve Bullock
13) Beto O'Rourke
14) Kirsten Gillibrand
15) Tulsi Gabbard
16) Andrew Yang
17) Marianne Williamson
18) John Delaney
19) Amy Klobuchar
20) John Hickenlooper
21) Tim Ryan

The debate really didn't change my opinion of anyone, either.  My slant is that I'm a party reformer, but still a party loyalist.  I really like almost all of these people, but I value progressive values, intelligence, and straightforward explanations, which informs my choices.

[Rajvik]

So last night was the second half of the second primary debate for the democrats and the Obama/Biden administration was the clear loser considering how during the Healthcare portions of the questioning they dogpiled on Joe Biden. Anybodies thoughts on the debates and the candidate's positions?

[robkelk]

They dogpiled on the current front-runner because he's the current front-runner, not because of anything he did or didn't do.

(IMHO, they did the right thing for the wrong reason. If the Democrats are so eager to run somebody who has such close ties to the old guard, why not just run Hillary again? If the Dems want to win, they need to run somebody else - the voters showed in 2016 that they want change.)

[hazard]

The Dem paymasters disagree with the voters, which is why there's such a disconnect.

[Labster]

The large donors are hedging their bets, though, giving to two or three of the front-runners. Of the people I talked to who actually voted Trump, they break down into two categories: (1) racists and (2) people who wanted change because social elites have too much power. The first group is by far the larger group, but Democrats aren't going to win them no matter what.

Voters like "change", whatever that means. But sometimes they want it more than others. I'm with Rob on this. I still think people want change, and that's kind of the global zeitgeist now. To the first group above that means that they see Trump as causing changes that they like and generally annoying the elites. The second group of "undecideds" can be won by presenting a platform that shakes up the economy a bit. You know, like maybe a platform that resembles European centrist parties instead of continuing down the economic centre-right that the neoliberals did.

So while I'd vote for Biden if he's the nominee, this is not a high bar. I'd vote for Margaret bloody Thatcher's ghost over Trump, at least she had some sense of propriety. I like Biden a good deal more, but all the same it's hard to get excited about yet another neolib baby boomer seeking office.

[LynnInDenver]

Voters like "change", whatever that means.  But sometimes they want it more than others.  I'm with Rob on this.  I still think people want change, and that's kind of the global zeitgeist now.  To the first group above that means that they see Trump as causing changes that they like and generally annoying the elites.  The second group of "undecideds" can be won by presenting a platform that shakes up the economy a bit.  You know, like maybe a platform that resembles European centrist parties instead of continuing down the economic centre-right that the neoliberals did.

I suspect for a lot of them, the ideal "shake the economy up a bit" means "doing things that make it a lot easier to do early capitalism things, and impossibly difficult to keep doing late capitalism things that are stripping us all of resources and the means to acquire resources". Which means fixing a lot of the things that have been made wrong with health insurance (the fact that even with insurance you can wind up so deep in the debt hole that even with a bankruptcy filing it'll be at least 10-15 years before you can even think of trying to own a home again, as just an example), and getting companies to pay a living wage, and perhaps even limiting the size of companies to prevent one from ever getting "too big to fail".

Yes, I recognize that this is politically difficult territory even at the best of times.

On the other hand, I also recognize the rock and a hard place; I am definitely in one of the demographics that the Republicans want to explicitly go away, and voting anything third party in our current system just isn't workable when I just want to exist without cramming myself into the damned soul crushing box every day again like I was this time last year.

[robkelk]

Prof. Allan Lichtman has accurately predicted seven of the last eight presidential election results, including Trump's win.

Here's his prediction for 2020.

[Rajvik]

and as an update, Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is out of the race,

[Black Aeronaut]

Thank God. That man really started to rub me wrong when he kept pushing on his idea of banning semi-automatic guns. There's better ways to enacted gun regulation than antagonizing your base.

[Labster]

We're now just under one year from the final election, so I thought I'd take time to update my picks.  People are dropping out, but not fast enough...  Some of these people should really be running for Senate instead.

1) Elizabeth Warren
2) Kamala Harris
3) Julián Castro
4) Jay Inslee
5) Cory Booker
6) Michael Bennet
7) Bernie Sanders
8) Pete Buttigieg
9) Joe Biden
10) Eric Swalwell
11) Bill de Blasio
12) Steve Bullock
13) Beto O'Rourke
14) Kirsten Gillibrand
15) Tulsi Gabbard
16) Andrew Yang
17) Marianne Williamson
18) John Delaney
19) Amy Klobuchar
20) John Hickenlooper
21) Tim Ryan
22) Michael Bloomberg (?)
23) Tom Steyer

Oh look there are two new entries!  But being billionaires, they automatically go to the bottom of the list.  I mean, I don't mind Steyer's politics but seriously, do we want a race where the two major candidates are billionaires with zero experience in holding previous elected office?

Or, well, one major candidate.  We really have no idea who will be running on the Republican side.  I'm not saying that removal from office is even likely, but we're in a world where we at least have a 1% chance of President Pelosi under the Constitution's Klingon promotion rule. If Republican operatives were sane, they'd start looking around to pick someone else because right now Trump looks like a very weak candidate if his presidency even survives to the general election.

[hazard]

The Republican party has sold itself to Donald Trump, so they can't really afford not to support him until the Senate is trying him. And even then, they may well ignore all the evidence and vote to keep him.

Should that happen, I would expect the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs.

[classicdrogn]

At most, you might see a split in the party, I think - there's too many people who hold to their party affiliation as irrationally as a religion, even if they despise the current prominent members. My own father uses "Democrat" as a curse word more intense than "fuck" or "damned" but has also said for years that the Washington crowd are "not real Republicans," and is firmly of the opinion that "they need to flush the toilet."

[Bob Schroeck]

do we want a race where the two major candidates are billionaires with zero experience in holding previous elected office?

Bloomberg actually has held an elected office -- he's a former mayor of New York City.

[robkelk]

Or, well, one major candidate.  We really have no idea who will be running on the Republican side.  I'm not saying that removal from office is even likely, but we're in a world where we at least have a 1% chance of President Pelosi under the Constitution's Klingon promotion rule. If Republican operatives were sane, they'd start looking around to pick someone else because right now Trump looks like a very weak candidate if his presidency even survives to the general election.

It isn't as if the Republicans haven't been in this position in the past. Alexander Panetta: Trump's impeachment drama is not that different from Nixon's:

When the scandal first erupted, Nixon had rock-solid support from Republicans. The polling agency Gallup says its data shows a mere six per cent of Republican supporters wanted Nixon impeached in June 1973, after public hearings had begun. ("Very similar to Trump," said Jeff Jones, senior editor at Gallup, in a recent interview.)

That grew to 12 per cent by December, 20 per cent by June 1974 and 31 per cent in early August, when Washington Republicans told Nixon he'd have to quit or be impeached. His support had also tanked among independents, and Republicans were worried about the impending midterm elections.

In comparison, Trump's at the same stage now where Nixon was when 6% of Republicans supported impeachment of Nixon. That analysis says 10% of Republicans support impeachment of Trump. So, if the history of the Republican Party is anything to go by... well, draw your own conclusions.

[SilverFang01]

Joe Biden told folks at a fundraiser that after he is elected Republicans will have an “epiphany” and work across the aisle with him.

My initial reaction was “how does someone who was Obama’s Vice President believe that? And why couldn’t he produce these results from 2009-16?

But Biden is not alone in believing this. Millions of Democrats and political pundits also believe it, for the same reason coal miners believe Trump will bring back a golden age of coal jobs or that he will turn back the clock to make them “respected.” They believe because they desperately *want* to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, because facing the reality that the world no longer works under the rules they knew no longer exists and never really existed in the first place.

“I will work across the aisle and find bipartisan solutions” is the Democratic Party version of MAGA, and those who push it are either suckers or swindlers.

[Matrix Dragon]

Joe Biden told folks at a fundraiser that after he is elected Republicans will have an “epiphany” and work across the aisle with him.

And it'll rain oil, and global warming will go away, and the economy will be perfect again!

My initial reaction was “how does someone who was Obama’s Vice President believe that? And why couldn’t he produce these results from 2009-16?

Because then it was a black man in charge.

[robkelk]

“I will work across the aisle and find bipartisan solutions” is the Democratic Party version of MAGA, and those who push it are either suckers or swindlers.

Working across the aisle is the only way to stop the factionalism.

The problem is that both sides have to not only be willing to work across the aisle but also to be willing to compromise, accepting that they won't get everything that they want.

You folks really need a third political party, who can hold the balance of power and get whichever of the big parties holds a plurality to work with them to get legislation through. That's how every other First World nation works...

[Labster]

The only way to stop the factionalism is to make both sides realize that factionalism is harmful.  This is a basic Prisoner's Dilemma, played out over years.  The conservatives have been playing the defect strategy for the past decade now, showing that they were willing to break norms to get what they want.  This has played out to a ridiculous degree.  They spend more time talking about owning the libs than they do giving lip service to compromise.  Meanwhile the bleeding heart liberals keep saying that we should all work together and hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya.

Nope.  The only way you get the system back into equillibrium is to choose defect.  Repeatedly.  Push an agenda through that minimizes your rivals while hopefully helping the country.  We need to do this until these people learn the lesson that you cannot treat your fellow leaders like shit day in, day out and expect love and respect in return.

It might take a while.  California Republicans are a minority, and the party seems to have reacted by becoming more extreme.  Like, having speeches about how many members of Trump's family will become president in the future-extreme.  It all started twenty years ago with Prop 187 and rejecting illegal immigrants, which meant they lost socially conservative racial minorities for a generation.  Have they learned their lesson yet?  Not if they're still rallying to keep children locked in cages.  And like, it's stupid.  If they wanted to make arguments about how we need more housing development or maybe nuclear power or infrastructure I'd listen.

Instead I keep hearing facetious complaints about how everyone is leaving the state because of high taxes.  And I just have to wonder, have these people been on a freeway lately?  The people are still here, believe me.

[Rajvik]

and Deval Patrick, former governor of the peoples republic of Massachusetts has entered the democratic primary race
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/...index.html

Guys, let me ask a serious question here, why is it when people on the left talk about "Reaching across the aisle," its always the Conservatives who are expected to give up what they want and the Liberals who demand to get everything they want. We see this every damn year come budget time no matter who controls what office.

Edit: Rob, no offense, but if the United States had a third party to, as you put it, force a balance, what we would end up with is a congress that really didn't get anything done, kinda like the British house of Parliament over Brexit. Also, we arguably do, it's unofficial but the Establishment party has been the one running the show for years, handing off the reigns of power back and forth between the "existing" parties back and forth. The thing is that the American people on both sides have grown tired of "Business as Usual" that is DC politics and said, "NO, we're going to the extremes now, piss off."