2020 election

[StCapps]

You are wrong about 72, more on that later. But you are presupposing an outcome here you can't presuppose here. Trump has the mo, and I believe he has an advantage but he can still easily lose this race.

72 is the only time the Dems went with a far-lefty to run against an incumbent POTUS in the last five attempts by either party, every other time, they picked a middle of the road milquetoast centrist, like Mondale, Dole, Kerry or Romney who had no chance against Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.

4 out of 5 times, it's a Biden-like politician winning since 1972, 1 out of 5 times it's a Sander-like politician winning since 1972.

[StCapps]

No, no, no, and no. As of now a "centrist" is unelectable for that party. No one is focused on a General right now I believe for most of these people, beating Trump is a forgone conclusion.

No, no and no. Democrats actually prefer more moderate candidates over the far lefties, even in 2018 that was the case, the more moderate candidates won over 80% of the democrat primaries against a further left opponent. The far-lefties just live in a bubble where they think they are the majority of Democrats, but they aren't. Even if the identitarian left was the majority, which it isn't, they are too divided for that to matter.

They might still go McGovern, but only if the far left unites behind one candidate who can steal enough centrist lane voters to knock off Biden, which means Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris is about as far-left as they can go and still have a hope of doing that. If you think the furthest left candidate is going to win this, you are mistaken, even in the Democrat primaries were the far left punches well above it's weight class, they don't have that kind of pull, let alone in a general election.

[clubgop]

No, no, no, and no. As of now a "centrist" is unelectable for that party. No one is focused on a General right now I believe for most of these people, beating Trump is a forgone conclusion.

No, no and no. Democrats actually prefer more moderate candidates over the far lefties, even in 2018 that was the case, the more moderate candidates won over 80% of the democrat primaries against a further left opponent. The far-lefties just live in a bubble where they think they are the majority of Democrats, but they aren't. Even if the identitarian left was the majority, which it isn't, they are too divided for that to matter.

I think you are underplaying the TDS here. Care to make this interesting?

[StCapps]

No, no, no, and no. As of now a "centrist" is unelectable for that party. No one is focused on a General right now I believe for most of these people, beating Trump is a forgone conclusion.

No, no and no. Democrats actually prefer more moderate candidates over the far lefties, even in 2018 that was the case, the more moderate candidates won over 80% of the democrat primaries against a further left opponent. The far-lefties just live in a bubble where they think they are the majority of Democrats, but they aren't. Even if the identitarian left was the majority, which it isn't, they are too divided for that to matter.

I think you are underplaying the TDS here. Care to make this interesting?

TDS makes it more likely that they don't pick a far-lefty because they will get steamrolled against Trump, Biden has the best chance of making it close with Trump, therefore TDS plays to Biden's advantage, not the far-lefties.

If you'll notice, I actually think it's more likely that Biden will lose the nomination than win it, I put his odds at 40% chance of victory. But of the three, Biden has the best chance of winning, it's just that Harris and Sanders combined chances of winning (50%) exceeds Biden's (40%). Based on that, how would we make things interesting?

[clubgop]

You are wrong about 72, more on that later. But you are presupposing an outcome here you can't presuppose here. Trump has the mo, and I believe he has an advantage but he can still easily lose this race.

72 is the only time the Dems went with a far-lefty to run against an incumbent POTUS in the last five attempts by either party, every other time, they picked a middle of the road milquetoast centrist, like Mondale, Dole, Kerry or Romney who had no chance against Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.

4 out of 5 times, it's a Biden-like politician winning since 1972, 1 out of 5 times it's a Sander-like politician winning since 1972.

See those are alot of assumptions and associations that don't have to be associated. 3 claims there.
Middle of the road
Milquetoast
Centrist

Mondale Yes on all 3.
Dole Yes on the first 2 not so sure about the third.
Kerry No, Yes, No
Romney Yes on all 3.

And consider the opponents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama
all career politicians. Trump is not that. The narrative might be that the career politician is the true incumbent or at least that might what the press and the democrats, but I repeat myself, be the narrative they push.

[StCapps]

You are wrong about 72, more on that later. But you are presupposing an outcome here you can't presuppose here. Trump has the mo, and I believe he has an advantage but he can still easily lose this race.

72 is the only time the Dems went with a far-lefty to run against an incumbent POTUS in the last five attempts by either party, every other time, they picked a middle of the road milquetoast centrist, like Mondale, Dole, Kerry or Romney who had no chance against Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.

4 out of 5 times, it's a Biden-like politician winning since 1972, 1 out of 5 times it's a Sander-like politician winning since 1972.

See those are alot of assumptions and associations that don't have to be associated. 3 claims there.
Middle of the road
Milquetoast
Centrist

Mondale Yes on all 3.
Dole Yes on the first 2 not so sure about the third.
Kerry No, Yes, No
Romney Yes on all 3.

And consider the opponents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama
all career politicians. Trump is not that. The narrative might be that the career politician is the true incumbent or at least that might what the press and the democrats, but I repeat myself, be the narrative they push.

Trump is an incumbent, underestimating an incumbent because he's not a career politician, will cause the Democrats to lose by an even larger margin than they otherwise would. When running against an incumbent likely to be re-elected, the electable milquetoast centrist lane winner, wins 80% of the time since the changed the system in 1972.

Kerry was very Romney-esque, flip flip flop, flip flop anonymous, won the electable centrist lane, even if he wasnt the most centrist candidate running, that isn't the point, the point is he was close enough to center, to win over the centrists. He who wins the centrist lane of Democrat or Republican primaries, wins the nomination, the vast majority of the time, especially when running against an incumbent POTUS.

Now there is still a good chance the Dems go 1972 all over again in 2020, and get steamrolled like McGovern, but more often than not, they choose not to do that, historically speaking.

[DBTrek]

Hate fake news? Yang has proposed the creation of a "news and information ombudsman," a kind of imperial fact-checker who would award media liars heavy fines instead of pinocchios.

That’s not creepy at all. Or hey, we could just become a direct Banana Republic under China and get communism and the state media censors without having to elect anyone.

They got this tho:

At present Yang's most vocal supporters seem to be young men who are what you might call "extremely online": the same meme-addicted 4chan weirdos who tended to favor Donald Trump in 2016. They call themselves the "Yang Gang."

https://theweek.com/articles/829377/and ... illennials

[StCapps]

Fines for lying?
No Yang! That's a Bad Yang!

[clubgop]

72 is the only time the Dems went with a far-lefty to run against an incumbent POTUS in the last five attempts by either party, every other time, they picked a middle of the road milquetoast centrist, like Mondale, Dole, Kerry or Romney who had no chance against Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.

4 out of 5 times, it's a Biden-like politician winning since 1972, 1 out of 5 times it's a Sander-like politician winning since 1972.

See those are alot of assumptions and associations that don't have to be associated. 3 claims there.
Middle of the road
Milquetoast
Centrist

Mondale Yes on all 3.
Dole Yes on the first 2 not so sure about the third.
Kerry No, Yes, No
Romney Yes on all 3.

And consider the opponents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama
all career politicians. Trump is not that. The narrative might be that the career politician is the true incumbent or at least that might what the press and the democrats, but I repeat myself, be the narrative they push.

Trump is an incumbent, underestimating an incumbent because he's not a career politician, will cause the Democrats to lose by an even larger margin than they otherwise would. When running against an incumbent likely to be re-elected, the electable milquetoast centrist lane winner, wins 80% of the time since the changed the system in 1972.

It's not about underestimating it's about flipping the script. For all the pearl clutching rhetoric they are playing this thing by the numbers.

Also Biden,
Middle of the road: Yes
Milquetoast: No
Centrist: Yes

[clubgop]

Hate fake news? Yang has proposed the creation of a "news and information ombudsman," a kind of imperial fact-checker who would award media liars heavy fines instead of pinocchios.

That’s not creepy at all. Or hey, we could just become a direct Banana Republic under China and get communism and the state media censors without having to elect anyone.

They got this tho:

At present Yang's most vocal supporters seem to be young men who are what you might call "extremely online": the same meme-addicted 4chan weirdos who tended to favor Donald Trump in 2016. They call themselves the "Yang Gang."

https://theweek.com/articles/829377/and ... illennials

The fine is going to be $1000. Yang gang going to be owing bags by the end of it.