Campaign 2020

[Sonic Youth]

Observe me if you will!
I’m Professor Harold Hill,
And I’m here to sell an amazing caucus app.

[criddic3]

The downloadable app the precincts were given doesn't work and the precincts are on hold on the phones for more than two hours.

According to Jeff Wells:

Unofficial NY Times delegate totals:

Buttigieg - 689
Sanders - 613
Biden - 499
Warren - 386

Ooh I will be so happy if my choice Mayor Pete wins!

[criddic3]

Never thought I'd see the day. Welcome, sir! Glad to have you.

Thank you and Big Magilla! I hope I will find the Democratic Party a better fit than the other party was.

[Big Magilla]

The downloadable app the precincts were given doesn't work and the precincts are on hold on the phones for more than two hours.

According to Jeff Wells:

Unofficial NY Times delegate totals:

Buttigieg - 689
Sanders - 613
Biden - 499
Warren - 386

[Sabin]

Caucuses are dumb.

[Greg]

What a mess!

[Big Magilla]

Watching the Iowa caucuses is so funny. It's like the preferential balloting at the Oscars, only instead of moving votes from failed titles they're moving live bodies from one candidate's group to another when one fails to obtain a 15% viability.

Buttigieg appears to be getting the most pickups from the breakup of klobuchar, Yang and Steier supporters. Even Warren supporters are going to Buttigieg over Biden and Saunders.

[taki15]

It's nice to see that Mister Tee hasn't lost his touch when it comes to politics after all these years. His analysis is concise and to the point.

It is indeed disappointing that out of all these young and exciting candidates the majority of Democratic voters seem to prefer a couple of old white guys.
But I think that Biden at least is savvy enough to pick a young minority politician like Harris as VP. He has been pretty vocal about rebuilding the Obama coalition and knows that you can't do that with an all-white ticket.

I also agree that Sanders even if he is elected would be a terrible president. In many ways he is the mirror image of Trump: an angry old white man whose unvarnished rhetoric has commanded the unwavering, cult-like devotion of a small but important part of his party's electorate, while at the same time alienating the rest. His delusional talk of winning West Virginia and Oklahoma is indicative of this mentality. And his opposition to abolishing the filibuster also shows that he isn't actually serious about enacting his ambitious agenda but only at using it as a cudgel against his political opponents.

[Mister Tee]

I haven't commented much on the campaign of late, largely because of how disheartened I became watching each of my favorites drop out. My top three: Kamala, Beto, Cory -- all dynamic, exciting campaigners, representing a new generation. Now we're down to a bunch of people (improbably) older than me, plus the dull Klobuchar and the questionable Buttigieg (questionable for his inexperience, his orientation, and his apparent belief in the "midwest voters are more American than you" ethos).

I share all of Sabin's doubts about Biden -- I've expressed some of them, here -- but, so help me, I may end up having to support him, especially if it comes down to him and Bernie. (More on that in a moment.) I agree with Rachel Bitecofer's take, that Biden is a risky candidate masquerading as a safe one. But I also agree with her that it may not matter this year -- that Trump represents such an existential crisis, and has so wound up Dem voters, that even an unexciting candidate will drive massive turnout.

I do, though, hope Biden has the sense not to do what the centrist poobahs are urging him to do: pick someone equally anodyne like Klobuchar, to create an all-inoffensive "bland is beautiful" ticket. This approach is a carryover from the Reagan era, when Dems were genuinely out of the political mainstream and had to dress in Republican drag to get elected in many spots. The Obama coalition proved Dems can be elected in their own right by goosing turnout among young and minority voters. If Biden should be the nominee, I think he needs to pick someone like Kamala or Stacey Abrams, to give some vitality to the ticket and invite in the younger voters not enthralled by a nearly-80-year-old (and, in the bargain, set up a possible successor).

What worries me most about Bernie -- apart from the fact I think he'd be a terrible president -- is that he simply has no interest in playing well with others. Did you see his interview connected to that silly NY Times endorsement thing? He proudly proclaimed that he doesn't remember people's birthdays, or do any of that personal stuff. And I found myself thinking, you know who I bet did? FDR...LBJ...Bill Clinton...Barack Obama...people who got things done. That's how politics works. Sanders (and some of his supporters) seem to have that childlike view that they'll get what they want simply by demanding it loudly enough.

Let me add that I also don't agree with people who think Sanders would be another McGovern. Demographics and population characteristics (like church-going) have tilted much in McGovern's direction over the past 50 years, and even George himself would get in excess of 45% today, way over the 37% he suffered then. But I think Sanders would inherit one problem McGovern had -- an inability to unite the party -- simply because Sanders would be too arrogant to bring it about. The difference between Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 was not their ideology -- they were quite similar -- but the fact that the party, sensing a chance at victory over a weak Jimmy Carter, rallied behind Reagan despite their misgivings. Were Elizabeth Warren to get the nomination, I have no doubt her immediate move would be to bring the party together (she'd have Obama aboard before sundown). Sanders, though, would be too full of himself to think that was worth bothering over. I think he's the one remaining serious candidate who could blow this election.

[Big Magilla]

I know a few people who voted for Trump because Sanders was defeated by Hillary in 2016. I don't know if they'd go back to him if he becomes the Democrats' candidate this year but what they liked about him was that he was an outsider. Some people just want to see things shaken up. Others just want them lightly stirred. They really don't care who does it as long as they do it.

I think the proper term for these people is "idiots".

True.

I always find it so interesting that Bernie Sanders, who has been in politics since 1981 (almost 40 years ago), is an outsider. Mayor from 81-89, House from 91-07, and Senate since 07. That's a lot of time in politics. He's not an outsider in any sense of the word.

If anything, he's the most ineffectual politician this side of R+15 district house and senate members. He spent more time in the Senate than Elizabeth Warren and she got more meaningful legislation passed than he has in his entire congressional career.

Also, true, but his thinking is outside the box which is what they like.

[taki15]

I know a few people who voted for Trump because Sanders was defeated by Hillary in 2016. I don't know if they'd go back to him if he becomes the Democrats' candidate this year but what they liked about him was that he was an outsider. Some people just want to see things shaken up. Others just want them lightly stirred. They really don't care who does it as long as they do it.

I think the proper term for these people is "idiots".

[OscarGuy]

I always find it so interesting that Bernie Sanders, who has been in politics since 1981 (almost 40 years ago), is an outsider. Mayor from 81-89, House from 91-07, and Senate since 07. That's a lot of time in politics. He's not an outsider in any sense of the word.

If anything, he's the most ineffectual politician this side of R+15 district house and senate members. He spent more time in the Senate than Elizabeth Warren and she got more meaningful legislation passed than he has in his entire congressional career.

[Big Magilla]

The Trump smear ads are on social media as well as TV.

I know a few people who voted for Trump because Sanders was defeated by Hillary in 2016. I don't know if they'd go back to him if he becomes the Democrats' candidate this year but what they liked about him was that he was an outsider. Some people just want to see things shaken up. Others just want them lightly stirred. They really don't care who does it as long as they do it.

I think Sanders can beat Trump, but it would be a nail-biter until the last vote is counted.

[OscarGuy]

There's a lot of evidence out there that television ads have little to no impact anymore.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
The bad news:

Trump's dirty tricks campaigners are working overtime to run ads against Biden while running support ads for Sanders because they think he will be easier to win against.

I’ve heard that claim. I don’t know how much I believe it but despite my support for someone further left like Sanders or Warren, I do believe fundamentally that Biden is more electable, although there are recordings out there that suggest Trump is scared of a Sanders candidacy bc it reframed Sanders as the outsider while Trump is the insider. But Biden is more widely acceptable. While Sanders was being put through the shredder for allegedly possibly suggesting a woman couldn’t beat Trump in a private conversation, Biden (aka the candidate in the plastic bubble) out and said before a crowd “Hillary lost bc of sexism. That’s not going to be a problem with me!” And he’s right. I just wish that there was evidence to suggest that *once* in a Democratic primary, the “more widely acceptable choice” produced the desired results (ie Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Clinton in 2008, Clinton in 2016). Stuff... just... goes... wrong.

One thing the Biden camp has going for it is excellent ads. Like Bloomberg, they are running a television campaign that has resulted in the best ads of the campaign.