2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

I don't believe based upon the data and available analyses that voters that have voted both D or R is limited to 1% of the turnout. Kep is right that the more that turnout the better it will be for the Democratic nominee - this is not up for debate. However, I know people that voted for Obama then for Trump, and they have said they hope the Dems nominate just about anyone but Sanders/Biden.

Someone under the age of 70 and someone who doesn't sound like your cranky grandpa telling you to use a Brillo pad instead of your iPad. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[burd]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

I'd say you take your career votes for Prez, Gov, Senate and Rep. Weight the Prez, I dunno, maybe 3 or 5. If you're over 67% for any party you're not an independent.

I'm something like:

70% Dem
20% Libertarian
5% Green
5% Republican

I'm not an Independent. I'm a Dem who used to like to sleep around with Third Parties.

Sleeping around is OK, but in some cases you need to have protection.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

1976 - D
1980 - R
1984 -> 2012 R
2016 - no vote

In MD, I vote R, except I voted for Willie Don Schaefer whenever he ran for State Office and pretty consistent D for comptroller.

I've voted 2x D for County Executive, but the County Council (& voters who vote) have shifted further left, so now it's a vote for a losing candidate.

State Legislature has been R just to break the Democrat hegenomy. Wasted effort.

Yea, I'm right of center, but will vote for a D if it makes sense. For example, Biden in 2016.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

1976 - D
1980 - R
1984 -> 2012 R
2016 - no vote

Yea, I'm right of center, but will vote for a D if it makes sense. For example, Biden in 2016.

What you typed in the first part doesn’t mesh with the last two sentences. And the last sentence doesn’t mesh with the second to last.

 

[aparch]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Oh look, Kamala Harris is now being targeted by birtherism bots.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Good article on Kamala Harris’ record: https://kennedysandking.com/articles/kamala-harris-a-study-in-showboating

 

[The Rube]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Amy K on a twitter blitz for fundraising...I don't think that's a good sign.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

1976 - D
1980 - R
1984 -> 2012 R
2016 - no vote

In MD, I vote R, except I voted for Willie Don Schaefer whenever he ran for State Office and pretty consistent D for comptroller.

I've voted 2x D for County Executive, but the County Council (& voters who vote) have shifted further left, so now it's a vote for a losing candidate.

State Legislature has been R just to break the Democrat hegenomy. Wasted effort.

Yea, I'm right of center, but will vote for a D if it makes sense. For example, Biden in 2016.

First: holy sh-t you're old!

You voted for Dubya in term 2. You are a Republican. That's basically the critical test.

 

[BassAle]

You're missing the point. Plenty of people call themselves Independents. 538 did an analysis a few years ago: Independents are just people who don't like to call themselves R or D, but they still vote R or D all the time. They're contrarians who like to think of themselves as open minded but they always just happen to come down on the same side.

It's an affectation.

Yeah. I work with a guy that loves to call himself an independent. He doesn’t want anything to do with the current Republican Party. Basically he’s a democrat but doesn’t get to participate in the primary.

I used to be the same. I was what Maine calls “unenrolled” (not enrolled in a recognized party). After two terms of Bush (the first two elections I was able to vote in) I said “**** this, I’m never going to vote for a republican , I might as well join the party I actually vote for so I can help shape it through the primary.”

 

[ericredaxe]

Yeah. I work with a guy that loves to call himself an independent. He doesn’t want anything to do with the current Republican Party. Basically he’s a democrat but doesn’t get to participate in the primary.

I used to be the same. I was what Maine calls “unenrolled” (not enrolled in a recognized party). After two terms of Bush (the first two elections I was able to vote in) I said “**** this, I’m never going to vote for a republican , I might as well join the party I actually vote for so I can help shape it through the primary.”

Does Maine not allow an unenrolled voter to vote in the primary of their choice? As unenrolled in Massachusetts I can choose either party’s ballot in the primary.

 

[BassAle]

Does Maine not allow an unenrolled voter to vote in the primary of their choice? As unenrolled in Massachusetts I can choose either party’s ballot in the primary.

No. You have to belong to a party to vote in the primary. If you are unenrolled you can join a party the day of the election (you can’t switch parties the day of though), but then you would have to unenroll later — and why bother to unenroll if you’re never going to vote for the other party because you find them disgusting?

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Mayor Pete is toast because he hasn't learned the one overarching requirement to being a successful politician: Never, ever admit you are wrong or that you failed, in anything. Never. His mea culpa on his inability to recruit and hire more black police officers was genuine, in my opinion. But once a politician says he or she failed, they will fade from view. Far too many refuse to admit failure or mistakes. Far too many see it as a sign of weakness. As the only openly gay person running there are already enough who see Buttigieg as "weak" and this just makes him appear weaker. It's too bad. I was on the fence about him as my mayor but I have been far more impressed with him as a presidential candidate than I ever expected to be.

 

[aparch]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Mayor Pete is toast because he hasn't learned the one overarching requirement to being a successful politician: Never, ever admit you are wrong or that you failed, in anything. Never. His mea culpa on his inability to recruit and hire more black police officers was genuine, in my opinion. But once a politician says he or she failed, they will fade from view. Far too many refuse to admit failure or mistakes. Far too many see it as a sign of weakness. As the only openly gay person running there are already enough who see Buttigieg as "weak" and this just makes him appear weaker. It's too bad. I was on the fence about him as my mayor but I have been far more impressed with him as a presidential candidate than I ever expected to be.

Which is a fu**ing shame because the same generation that whine about weaknesses like this (Oh, why won't Gen X / Millennials own up to their responsibilities?) and then in the next breath they're out there lying about their own responsibility.

I'd much rather have someone who owned up to a mistake in hindsight than someone who keeps lying.

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Mayor Pete is toast because he hasn't learned the one overarching requirement to being a successful politician: Never, ever admit you are wrong or that you failed, in anything. Never. His mea culpa on his inability to recruit and hire more black police officers was genuine, in my opinion. But once a politician says he or she failed, they will fade from view. Far too many refuse to admit failure or mistakes. Far too many see it as a sign of weakness. As the only openly gay person running there are already enough who see Buttigieg as "weak" and this just makes him appear weaker. It's too bad. I was on the fence about him as my mayor but I have been far more impressed with him as a presidential candidate than I ever expected to be.

Actually the people I heard talk about it liked it. I dont think it helped him much but it didnt seem to hurt him at all either. He can get away with it because half of his appeal is he plays as genuine.

His major problem is he needs to go on the attack on he just doesnt come off as that guy. Harris knew if she wanted to make a move she had to come out swinging and did so. Pete would take an image hit if he did that. Playing to his strengths wont close the gap enough.

If I am Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren's staff I am calling his people every day saying two things "stick around for a while" and "Veep is waiting for you".

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Actually the people I heard talk about it liked it. I dont think it helped him much but it didnt seem to hurt him at all either. He can get away with it because half of his appeal is he plays as genuine.

His major problem is he needs to go on the attack on he just doesnt come off as that guy. Harris knew if she wanted to make a move she had to come out swinging and did so. Pete would take an image hit if he did that. Playing to his strengths wont close the gap enough.

If I am Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren's staff I am calling his people every day saying two things "stick around for a while" and "Veep is waiting for you".

I’d day not getting hurt by it is itself a win. Take Biden’s response to Harris. That hurt him.

When you have such a vulnerability all you can hope for is a wash. He did great.

100% agree with your post. Part of me thinks he is the PERFECT answer to Pence in a VP debate. Intelligent, genuine, and everything pence doesn’t represent. Both from Indiana. And unlike nearly any other democrat, he can speak on his faith without it coming across as completely phony. That is going to peel voters off, as much as a VP pick can I suppose.

Pence’s concerned furrowed eyebrow look would get eaten alive by mayor Pete.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Buttigieg as veep makes a lot of sense, with the caveat that what if he'd be better off running in Indiana's next Senate election? Or are the days of them voting for a conservadem like Evan Bayh or even a sane-ish Republican like Richard Lugar toast, and he'd go down like Beto in Texas? Hard to say until you run a candidate as good as Buttigieg could be.

After reviewing Biden's debate, I'm going to have to slide him into 4th just below Sanders. He did worse than I initially thought. I may be sick and tired of Bernie's shtick, but at least he's consistent about it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Buttigieg as veep makes a lot of sense, with the caveat that what if he'd be better off running in Indiana's next Senate election? Or are the days of them voting for a conservadem like Evan Bayh or even a sane-ish Republican like Richard Lugar toast, and he'd go down like Beto in Texas? Hard to say until you run a candidate as good as Buttigieg could be.

After reviewing Biden's debate, I'm going to have to slide him into 4th just below Sanders. He did worse than I initially thought. I may be sick and tired of Bernie's shtick, but at least he's consistent about it.

I dont see him winning a Senate seat in Indiana...though it is an intriguing idea.

Oh man Pence would have a stroke going up against him. The amount of strain he would put on himself preventing him from screaming homophobic slurs at Pete would be hilarious to watch. He would be like 1 second away from a Michael Richards like meltdown at all times

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

I dont see him winning a Senate seat in Indiana...though it is an intriguing idea.

You're probably right, the 2016 Indiana map is pretty deep red outside of the cities and colleges. Heck, even the county where Purdon't is went for Dump and Young. D@mn dateless enginerds.

2018 Senate map wasn't much better.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

Buttigieg as veep makes a lot of sense, with the caveat that what if he'd be better off running in Indiana's next Senate election? Or are the days of them voting for a conservadem like Evan Bayh or even a sane-ish Republican like Richard Lugar toast, and he'd go down like Beto in Texas? Hard to say until you run a candidate as good as Buttigieg could be.

After reviewing Biden's debate, I'm going to have to slide him into 4th just below Sanders. He did worse than I initially thought. I may be sick and tired of Bernie's shtick, but at least he's consistent about it.

He would get obliterated in an Indiana Senate race. Indiana's voters are less "we don't like non-white people" (although there are a lot of those) as much as bible thumping "holy matrimony is between one MAN and one WOMAN" people. A guy doing certain things with another guy is hard for them to think about. Of course the simple solution would be just don't think about it, and we Hoosiers (I am one by birth but live in Ohio and claim Michigan as my "home" state) are simple folk, but that's asking far too much.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers III: The Wrath of Warren

I know Indiana is the Alabama of the north (it's where my 'thumper cousin and her husband live with their brood), I'm just spitballing because I think Buttigieg at VP is a huge waste of his talents.