DNC 2016 speakers who are confirmed (and were obvious picks)
Michelle Obama 15 min (56)
Elizabeth Warren 20 min (71)
Bernie Sanders 30 min (78)
Bill Clinton 45 min (73, so much other bullshit)
Barack Obama 1 hour (59)
Joe Biden 20 minutes (77, ugh)
HRC (nominee) 1 hour (72, hated enough for a bunch of people to take a flyer in Trump)
There is now 8 hours of speaking time. Switch Biden and HRC, cut B Clinton back because he's not pulling double duty as spouse and former President and that's something like 4 hours. You have no Governors (Inslee, Whitmer), Kasich is there are the token guy from the other party to show the breadth of the coalition against Trump, and Pelosi and Schumer don't have slots. You have no Latinx, Native or Asian speakers. You have no union representation and no immigrants. The pandemic is going to result in a lot of hard cuts. A one term representative like AOC is not entitled to a primetime speaking slot, especially over more popular officials who represent larger groups of constituents.
I’m a dem trying to help my party
This lineup fucking sucks with an average age of 69 (not nice), and 5 of the 7 have spent 8 years in the WH or Naval Observatory
The old Dems need to let the fuck go. The Clinton and Obama presidencies were not that good and the world feels like it’s going to end any moment now and we need new leaders to make us feel like there’s a chance to get better
It’s like fucking Hogan or Triple H or whoever keeping anyone else from getting over only the consequences aren’t tv ratings it’s people’s fucking lives
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
On Friday afternoon, a fellow House member said people close to Ocasio-Cortez said she will get a primetime speaking role and deserves one because she is leading climate change policy for Biden, referring to the “unity” task force created by the former vice president and Sanders that she co-chaired. In response, Ocasio-Cortez spokeswoman Lauren Hitt declined to confirm or deny Ocasio-Cortez’s inclusion in the virtual program, but said, “No one close to the congresswoman said that.”
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
Bill Clinton is a pedophile, shryke
Maybe?
Still doesn't actually change what I said though.
Please stop assuming that an expression of disapproval implies a lack of understanding. It's extremely gross and condescending and you do it constantly.
No one ever asked why Bill Clinton was picked to speak at the convention. I'm fairly certain everyone had deduced the why. The point being put forth is that the why, whatever the reason, is utterly irrelevant.
Basically when there's a lot of public open talk about young voters not mattering and such, the situation gets created at that point where it's true. If younger voters were, y'know, made to feel welcome, they would probably participate more.
Considering this is a problem with every democracy on the face of the planet, it's more a problem of young people not exercizing the political power they should have. If they voted, then the system would bend to them. But they don't, so it doesn't, so they disengage. This is a cyclical problem, not an establishment one.
To put it simply, young voters don't matter because they as a group do not vote consistently. If they did, the entire poltical landscape would be about as radically transformed as any time in the last 50 years.
To support that:
From the census (and note the lack of correlation with youth turnout and D success)
UK
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
DNC 2016 speakers who are confirmed (and were obvious picks)
Michelle Obama 15 min (56)
Elizabeth Warren 20 min (71)
Bernie Sanders 30 min (78)
Bill Clinton 45 min (73, so much other bullshit)
Barack Obama 1 hour (59)
Joe Biden 20 minutes (77, ugh)
HRC (nominee) 1 hour (72, hated enough for a bunch of people to take a flyer in Trump)
There is now 8 hours of speaking time. Switch Biden and HRC, cut B Clinton back because he's not pulling double duty as spouse and former President and that's something like 4 hours. You have no Governors (Inslee, Whitmer), Kasich is there are the token guy from the other party to show the breadth of the coalition against Trump, and Pelosi and Schumer don't have slots. You have no Latinx, Native or Asian speakers. You have no union representation and no immigrants. The pandemic is going to result in a lot of hard cuts. A one term representative like AOC is not entitled to a primetime speaking slot, especially over more popular officials who represent larger groups of constituents.
I’m a dem trying to help my party
This lineup fucking sucks with an average age of 69 (not nice), and 5 of the 7 have spent 8 years in the WH or Naval Observatory
The old Dems need to let the fuck go. The Clinton and Obama presidencies were not that good and the world feels like it’s going to end any moment now and we need new leaders to make us feel like there’s a chance to get better
Dude, Obama is incredibly popular. Especially within the party. And "weren't the Obama years great" resonates pretty well these days afaik. Cutting ties with Obama makes even less sense then with Clinton.
I'm not so sure about 538 being conservative and simple and just based on polls and all that. Remember the latest primary, when, for a while, they were predicting a big [redacted] sweep, not based on polls, but just based on how well [redacted] did in some early states? That lowered my opinion of their modeling
538 gets shitty when it gets into punditry. Which is hilarious given Silver's book which was about how horribly wrong pundits usually are.
But I'm not talking about their opinion pieces, I'm talking about their model!
Hopefully a little primary talk is OK as long as I'm not trying to relitigate old fights or anything...
Look at the small window of time when they had Sanders way, way in the lead. From what I understand, that wasn't from state polls. I don't think the polls were showing Sanders ahead in the state races. They were giving Sanders frontrunner status based on other, fuzzier stuff. Their model literally tried to incorporate what TV networks were "emphasizing", and "guessing...about the bounces that will emerge from New Hampshire".
People *think* 538 is an outfit that believes "it's the polling, stupid", but I dunno, often, it feels like what they do amounts to tea leaf reading
Primary stuff:
I don't think that's a fair reading of either article, especially the second. In the first case, it's because their Iowa model didn't distinguish between the popular vote winner and the SDE winner. The popular vote had never been public before so it's never been a prior concern, the chance of a different popular vote/SDE winner is relatively small, and traditionally the reported "winner" of other states is whomever gets the most delegates, regardless of popular vote. Iowa results were a disaster overall, but historically it's given a decent bump to the winner, so it's something they had to adjust for. But the adjustment was only applied to the Iowa bump, only for a few days (until more polling came in) and pretty small (85%/15% victory credit split in favor of Buttigieg instead of all credit going to Buttigieg). Tea leaf reading to an extent, sure, but it was never a big factor.
And saying that the model is "guessing" about something isn't really accurate. They were using it as a metaphor, not a literal descriptor. The model uses a fuzzy process. It might see that, historically, New Hampshire winners get a 5% boost in the polls with 3% standard deviation (I made up those numbers, I don't know the real ones off the top of my head). So it'll generate different possible results. If Bernie wins New Hampshire by a large amount, and he gets an 4% bounce leading to Nevada, what does that say about the race? What if he gets a 7% bounce? What if he wins by a small amount, what if Gabbard pulled out a surprise victory, etc etc. Then it averages all those results together, weighting by probability. That's what it means by "guesses," and it's good math!
To bring this back to the general elections, the thing that really makes 538's primary prediction "weird" is that it's a drawn out process. You can't just figure out how a candidate will likely perform in Iowa and New Hampshire, you have to figure out how Iowa's performance will affect New Hampshire. Maybe a candidate will perform poorly enough they drop out--or maybe they'll hang in, never winning another delegate, but constantly sapping 5% from one of the candidates with an actual chance. Maybe a candidate will do surprisingly well early on, get an early bounce, and ride it to victory (see: Obama's Iowa victory 2008). None of that really applies to general elections, which makes them much easier to handicap (a few states with weird processes excluded). They had two general election models (not including their nowcast, which was different). One of those was almost solely just a poll aggregator. There were a few elements to the secret sauce, but pretty basic math. The second adds in fundamentals as a base-line for states to revert to over time. For example, prior to this past week or so, a lot of Texas polls showed Biden with a small lead. The fundamentals are 538's way of saying "he might be doing well in Texas now, but Trump is still the strong favorite to win it in November, because Texas is a red state and three months is a long time for Biden to be overperforming". For all of these bits of math, they have past elections they can look at to see how some piece of datum has historically correlated with the end result.
That's why they're able to do so well with the analytical parts of the site even though their punditry is honestly garbage. And that's why, when their general election model comes out, I'll trust them to give a decently reliable forecast.
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
DNC 2016 speakers who are confirmed (and were obvious picks)
Michelle Obama 15 min (56)
Elizabeth Warren 20 min (71)
Bernie Sanders 30 min (78)
Bill Clinton 45 min (73, so much other bullshit)
Barack Obama 1 hour (59)
Joe Biden 20 minutes (77, ugh)
HRC (nominee) 1 hour (72, hated enough for a bunch of people to take a flyer in Trump)
There is now 8 hours of speaking time. Switch Biden and HRC, cut B Clinton back because he's not pulling double duty as spouse and former President and that's something like 4 hours. You have no Governors (Inslee, Whitmer), Kasich is there are the token guy from the other party to show the breadth of the coalition against Trump, and Pelosi and Schumer don't have slots. You have no Latinx, Native or Asian speakers. You have no union representation and no immigrants. The pandemic is going to result in a lot of hard cuts. A one term representative like AOC is not entitled to a primetime speaking slot, especially over more popular officials who represent larger groups of constituents.
I’m a dem trying to help my party
This lineup fucking sucks with an average age of 69 (not nice), and 5 of the 7 have spent 8 years in the WH or Naval Observatory
The old Dems need to let the fuck go. The Clinton and Obama presidencies were not that good and the world feels like it’s going to end any moment now and we need new leaders to make us feel like there’s a chance to get better
Dude, Obama is incredibly popular. Especially within the party. And "weren't the Obama years great" resonates pretty well these days afaik. Cutting ties with Obama makes even less sense then with Clinton.
Obama is fine, several posts back I made suggestions for how to change the lineup
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2020
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
Edit - I mean writing this issue off as "well it is what it is not even in just our own country!" is nihilism and/or laziness.
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
Just cause everyone only remembers Obama from that convention doesn't mean he was the main or only one speaking. Top speakers were exactly who you'd expect:
Clinton, Carter, Gore, Clinton
Kerry's family
Obama
Edwards and family
Kerry and family
That's your headliners. Former presidents, Nominee and VP, other old big party names. That's always been your headliners. Obama got on their because after his huge victory in his senate race basically everyone was like "this guy gonna be the first black president". And he's an outlier because of that. Everyone else is basically the big old names you expect and all the smaller names and up-and-comers fill out the secondary speakers. That's the way these things generally work.
I wonder if you could have like high school kids “vote” at their school so they could learn the process- they “register” but if not yet 18, their votes are recorded but don’t count, and then they’re automatically registered once they turn 18
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I think it's more important to look at where the youth candidate lands as opposed to just saying that the youth candidate lost. There's a big difference between a youth candidate that came in second versus a youth candidate that drops out after 2 primaries. Those kind of stats need to be looked at in the nitty gritty rather than going "Well first past the post means that all these youth are zero youth until they hit critical mass to surge past the post"
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I mean you can dust your hands off and go "see they didn't vote" or you can put some leg work into figuring out why they didn't and work with them.
Maybe directly get them involved in the process, be it the operation of elections or operation of the party (positions that don't require election, etc).
I do think that AOC should have a speaking spot, Republican hysteria and fearmongering about her be damned. It's fantastic that she's working with and influencing Biden despite the fact that she probably doesn't like him. We need a coalition, not infighting.
I wish the Democrats would move past the Clintons though. Bill is gross and it's time to retire him and Hillary lost to Trump, though not entirely her fault, I really don't like the reminder. I desperately want to move forward and make Trump's America a bad memory.
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
Just cause everyone only remembers Obama from that convention doesn't mean he was the main or only one speaking. Top speakers were exactly who you'd expect:
Clinton, Carter, Gore, Clinton (56, 81, 56, 57)
Kerry's family (Kerry was 60)
Obama (43)
Edwards and family (51)
Kerry and family
That's your headliners. Former presidents, Nominee and VP, other old big party names. That's always been your headliners. Obama got on their because after his huge victory in his senate race basically everyone was like "this guy gonna be the first black president". And he's an outlier because of that. Everyone else is basically the big old names you expect and all the smaller names and up-and-comers fill out the secondary speakers. That's the way these things generally work.
The Clintons were 56 and 57
Gore was 56
Carter was 81, only 4 years older than our nominee this year
Edwards was 51
Kerry was 60
Obama was 43
I’m not arguing from ignorance dude- I was an elected democrat myself in 2004!
I’m saying that the party is dying, and not in a slow way, in a super fast and almost already dead way and the fact that 3 of the 7 prime time speakers listed from 16 years/4 pres elections ago are holding spots this year is a symptom of a bad fucking problem
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I mean you can dust your hands off and go "see they didn't vote" or you can put some leg work into figuring out why they didn't and work with them.
Maybe directly get them involved in the process, be it the operation of elections or operation of the party (positions that don't require election, etc).
People have been trying to crack this nut for at least 60 years, and it's common across democracies with voluntary voting.
Their lack of engagement is at least in part, part of the human condition.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
Keep in mind that youth turnout is low relative to older people everywhere. It's not some crazy American thing where kids would become reliable voters if only someone remembered them.
What you get in practice is the occasional person who comes along and is particularly good at appealing to kids (Obama, Bernie) and they turn out for that person and then go back to ignoring the next election. So if your campaign strategy hinges on boosting youth turnout to the same level as older groups, you're making a big gamble. And making that gamble can be risky. Biden might be able to get more youth voters if he shifts hard left on a lot of issues, but he'd do so at the expense of the (reliable) older vote. That gamble still might not pay off. If he's seen as insincere, he'll end up sacrificing that reliable older vote for little gain. We've seen him moving left and trying to reconcile with progressives, but there's definitely a certain amount of threading the needle.
And a lot of politicians and organizations do engage young voters and work on youth turnout. It's just one part of a broader strategy rather than something they zero in on.
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I think it's more important to look at where the youth candidate lands as opposed to just saying that the youth candidate lost. There's a big difference between a youth candidate that came in second versus a youth candidate that drops out after 2 primaries. Those kind of stats need to be looked at in the nitty gritty rather than going "Well first past the post means that all these youth are zero youth until they hit critical mass to surge past the post"
The important factor is just voter turnout percentage. The point of looking at candidates who courted the youth vote is that candidates do actually court the youth vote. Sometimes very aggressively. It just doesn't juice their turnout numbers enough that it really changes the pattern.
Honestly if anything it seems like the main thing changing turnout percentage for the youth is generational turnover.
Also I’mm not making a youth voting argument either, I’m just saying the Dems need to prioritize elevating a new generation of leaders, but that requires Hogan putting Jericho over and it’s just not gonna happen until someone dies or there’s a recording of one of them saying the n-word
DNC 2016 speakers who are confirmed (and were obvious picks)
Michelle Obama 15 min (56)
Elizabeth Warren 20 min (71)
Bernie Sanders 30 min (78)
Bill Clinton 45 min (73, so much other bullshit)
Barack Obama 1 hour (59)
Joe Biden 20 minutes (77, ugh)
HRC (nominee) 1 hour (72, hated enough for a bunch of people to take a flyer in Trump)
There is now 8 hours of speaking time. Switch Biden and HRC, cut B Clinton back because he's not pulling double duty as spouse and former President and that's something like 4 hours. You have no Governors (Inslee, Whitmer), Kasich is there are the token guy from the other party to show the breadth of the coalition against Trump, and Pelosi and Schumer don't have slots. You have no Latinx, Native or Asian speakers. You have no union representation and no immigrants. The pandemic is going to result in a lot of hard cuts. A one term representative like AOC is not entitled to a primetime speaking slot, especially over more popular officials who represent larger groups of constituents.
I’m a dem trying to help my party
This lineup fucking sucks with an average age of 69 (not nice), and 5 of the 7 have spent 8 years in the WH or Naval Observatory
The old Dems need to let the fuck go. The Clinton and Obama presidencies were not that good and the world feels like it’s going to end any moment now and we need new leaders to make us feel like there’s a chance to get better
Dude, Obama is incredibly popular. Especially within the party. And "weren't the Obama years great" resonates pretty well these days afaik. Cutting ties with Obama makes even less sense then with Clinton.
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I think it's more important to look at where the youth candidate lands as opposed to just saying that the youth candidate lost. There's a big difference between a youth candidate that came in second versus a youth candidate that drops out after 2 primaries. Those kind of stats need to be looked at in the nitty gritty rather than going "Well first past the post means that all these youth are zero youth until they hit critical mass to surge past the post"
But they also don’t get more youth! There isn’t huge turnout boost!
I mean, yeah turnout sucks with the youth, but you can't argue that there aren't and haven't been active efforts to discourage or prevent them from voting.
Here in Michigan, going to an in-state college ten hours from your registered residence was insufficient to get an absentee ballot. Had to go home if you wanted to vote. People (iirc) over 60 could just ask with no reason and get an absentee ballot.
Youth work jobs that are harder to get time off / come in late / leave early. Or get child care. Or make it to their precinct.
And shit, it was only 50 years ago people 18-21 even got the right to vote with the 26th Amendment.
Maybe we should fix the suppression problem and see where youth end up. It may still be lower, but I'm pretty sure every demographic would have a drop in turnout if they faced the same hurdles.
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
Just cause everyone only remembers Obama from that convention doesn't mean he was the main or only one speaking. Top speakers were exactly who you'd expect:
Clinton, Carter, Gore, Clinton (56, 81, 56, 57)
Kerry's family (Kerry was 60)
Obama (43)
Edwards and family (51)
Kerry and family
That's your headliners. Former presidents, Nominee and VP, other old big party names. That's always been your headliners. Obama got on their because after his huge victory in his senate race basically everyone was like "this guy gonna be the first black president". And he's an outlier because of that. Everyone else is basically the big old names you expect and all the smaller names and up-and-comers fill out the secondary speakers. That's the way these things generally work.
The Clintons were 56 and 57
Gore was 56
Carter was 81, only 4 years older than our nominee this year
Edwards was 51
Kerry was 60
Obama was 43
I’m not arguing from ignorance dude- I was an elected democrat myself in 2004!
I’m saying that the party is dying, and not in a slow way, in a super fast and almost already dead way and the fact that 3 of the 7 prime time speakers listed from 16 years/4 pres elections ago are holding spots this year is a symptom of a bad fucking problem
But there's nothing notable about this lineup. The expected speakers this year are basically the exact same kind of people who were the expected speakers at the 2004 convention. Which was the example you brought up. The age thing doesn't make a difference here because the reason they are speaking is cause they are former presidents and other big names within the party. That's who gets the primetime spots.
they should let AOC speak in their convention because it'll look terrible if they don't. just put her up alongside one of the more conservative congresspeople, in the way that you're putting Sanders next to Kasich. big tent
if you don't do that it just looks like you're cutting her out because you have a personal vendetta against her, which is of course true but you can't make a production out of it
also Hillary lol. there's no way that looks good for them but i guess she just has too much clout to leave out
I’m 100% on board with AOC being tapped for the convention somehow, but if they don’t it’s because of a vendetta? I don’t see it. She gets along well with party leadership despite their differences.
If they don’t choose her for some reason I would think it’s a dumb move but I don’t think petty grudges are the only possible explanation.
Even if it’s not a grudge, she, along with many others, are being sidelined for both Clintons, and both have enormous baggage that should be nowhere near any fucking candidate for any office
Of course the still extremely popular former President is speaking. I'm pretty sure he's still hitting like 70%+ in polling among Democrats?
I would be surprised and disgusted and also not surprised of this were still true
And Hillary is so popular it’s not an incumbent convention
Though I guess I’m buying into the convention as voter outreach instead of party wankery that the media gets big ratings for covering so I guess
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
Just cause everyone only remembers Obama from that convention doesn't mean he was the main or only one speaking. Top speakers were exactly who you'd expect:
Clinton, Carter, Gore, Clinton (56, 81, 56, 57)
Kerry's family (Kerry was 60)
Obama (43)
Edwards and family (51)
Kerry and family
That's your headliners. Former presidents, Nominee and VP, other old big party names. That's always been your headliners. Obama got on their because after his huge victory in his senate race basically everyone was like "this guy gonna be the first black president". And he's an outlier because of that. Everyone else is basically the big old names you expect and all the smaller names and up-and-comers fill out the secondary speakers. That's the way these things generally work.
The Clintons were 56 and 57
Gore was 56
Carter was 81, only 4 years older than our nominee this year
Edwards was 51
Kerry was 60
Obama was 43
I’m not arguing from ignorance dude- I was an elected democrat myself in 2004!
I’m saying that the party is dying, and not in a slow way, in a super fast and almost already dead way and the fact that 3 of the 7 prime time speakers listed from 16 years/4 pres elections ago are holding spots this year is a symptom of a bad fucking problem
But there's nothing notable about this lineup. The expected speakers this year are basically the exact same kind of people who were the expected speakers at the 2004 convention. Which was the example you brought up. The age thing doesn't make a difference here because the reason they are speaking is cause they are former presidents and other big names within the party. That's who gets the primetime spots.
This is not a rule! They can change it!
Even if Biden wins there’s a really good chance that Obama is the only living former dem president in 2028 (other than the incumbent), maybe even 2024! They need to recognize that and use these opportunities to promote the next generation of leaders!
I can imagine you lecturing us about corporate succession planning in other threads but you’re digging in here because you reflexively think I’m coming at this from the left flank and this is one of those dem vs left arguments. I’m making a “the Dems would be better off in the not-actually-that-long-term if they bucked history considering the ages of the vanguard and promoted new leaders” argument.
Trump says he's planning executive order requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, something already established in ObamaCare which he's trying to dismantle
Even The Hill is having a hard time taking Trump's desperate ploys to save his polling numbers seriously.
it's pretty easy to write off all criticism of the democrats as leftist sour grapes but a lot of the time i think they're failing even by their own standards as sensible moderates
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Ironically, deciding who is the most popular Democrat of all time remains off topic for the thread about the November 2020 election.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
It's kind of amazing to me just how much of a stranglehold the Clinton's still have on the party.
Like Bill gets elected in 92 and from that point forward they just start building a party machine aligned with their ideals and at least in part built towards eventually getting Hillary elected President (she couldn't run in 2000, she needed to build a resume besides being first lady) and should have seen Gore elected as well.
Obama inspired a lot of people to maybe run for office or get involved but at the end of the day he never really had the party under his control despite being enormously popular.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I mean you can dust your hands off and go "see they didn't vote" or you can put some leg work into figuring out why they didn't and work with them.
Maybe directly get them involved in the process, be it the operation of elections or operation of the party (positions that don't require election, etc).
People have been trying to crack this nut for at least 60 years, and it's common across democracies with voluntary voting.
Their lack of engagement is at least in part, part of the human condition.
If it hasn't been working for 60 years then the methods used need to be examined. Because where I sit, and where I sat decades ago, I haven't exactly seen much change in that regard on part of the leadership and older people in general.
Again, you can either give up now or keep trying.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I’d like a little more of the younger generation speaking, but not the higher-profile members of the so-called “squad” who mostly say crazy things and attract the wrong kind of attention. Ayanna Pressley would be a good choice.
I’d also like people like Sharice Davids and Rachel Gonzalez to have a bigger voice in the party.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Young voters aren't worth trying to win over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because they don't reliably vote because nobody makes the effort to win them over to vote because-
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
I mean you can dust your hands off and go "see they didn't vote" or you can put some leg work into figuring out why they didn't and work with them.
Maybe directly get them involved in the process, be it the operation of elections or operation of the party (positions that don't require election, etc).
People have been trying to crack this nut for at least 60 years, and it's common across democracies with voluntary voting.
Their lack of engagement is at least in part, part of the human condition.
If it hasn't been working for 60 years then the methods used need to be examined. Because where I sit, and where I sat decades ago, I haven't exactly seen much change in that regard on part of the leadership and older people in general.
Again, you can either give up now or keep trying.
I mean, if Bernie had been successful at what he was trying to do by activiating the youth vote, he would have smashed Biden.
I’d like a little more of the younger generation speaking, but not the higher-profile members of the so-called “squad” who mostly say crazy things and attract the wrong kind of attention. Ayanna Pressley would be a good choice.
I’d also like people like Sharice Davids and Rachel Gonzalez to have a bigger voice in the party.
I don't think AOC says crazy things. I hope she speaks!
one good place to start would be the kind of union organising that Jane McAlevey talks about in her book No Shortcuts
you need to form new political machines by building support for the left into people's lives and workplaces. it's something you do all the time, not just in an election year
however i think there's a problem where democrats just look at that kind of organising and go "no, it will never work, people are too dumb"
Posts
I’m a dem trying to help my party
This lineup fucking sucks with an average age of 69 (not nice), and 5 of the 7 have spent 8 years in the WH or Naval Observatory
The old Dems need to let the fuck go. The Clinton and Obama presidencies were not that good and the world feels like it’s going to end any moment now and we need new leaders to make us feel like there’s a chance to get better
Fucking
Sucks
It’s like fucking Hogan or Triple H or whoever keeping anyone else from getting over only the consequences aren’t tv ratings it’s people’s fucking lives
Maybe?
Still doesn't actually change what I said though.
Looks like AOC may have a prime-time spot
Please stop assuming that an expression of disapproval implies a lack of understanding. It's extremely gross and condescending and you do it constantly.
No one ever asked why Bill Clinton was picked to speak at the convention. I'm fairly certain everyone had deduced the why. The point being put forth is that the why, whatever the reason, is utterly irrelevant.
From the census (and note the lack of correlation with youth turnout and D success)
UK
Young people just vote less.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
According to a recent-ish YouGov poll I found, Bill Clinton is the 5th most popular democrat. And that's across everyone they polled, not just Democrats afaik. Right behind Biden and basically tied with Warren.
Like, given his performance at John Lewis' funeral I'm not sure I personally would want him speaking but I can't see how you could cut him given his position within the party.
Dude, Obama is incredibly popular. Especially within the party. And "weren't the Obama years great" resonates pretty well these days afaik. Cutting ties with Obama makes even less sense then with Clinton.
Primary stuff:
And saying that the model is "guessing" about something isn't really accurate. They were using it as a metaphor, not a literal descriptor. The model uses a fuzzy process. It might see that, historically, New Hampshire winners get a 5% boost in the polls with 3% standard deviation (I made up those numbers, I don't know the real ones off the top of my head). So it'll generate different possible results. If Bernie wins New Hampshire by a large amount, and he gets an 4% bounce leading to Nevada, what does that say about the race? What if he gets a 7% bounce? What if he wins by a small amount, what if Gabbard pulled out a surprise victory, etc etc. Then it averages all those results together, weighting by probability. That's what it means by "guesses," and it's good math!
To bring this back to the general elections, the thing that really makes 538's primary prediction "weird" is that it's a drawn out process. You can't just figure out how a candidate will likely perform in Iowa and New Hampshire, you have to figure out how Iowa's performance will affect New Hampshire. Maybe a candidate will perform poorly enough they drop out--or maybe they'll hang in, never winning another delegate, but constantly sapping 5% from one of the candidates with an actual chance. Maybe a candidate will do surprisingly well early on, get an early bounce, and ride it to victory (see: Obama's Iowa victory 2008). None of that really applies to general elections, which makes them much easier to handicap (a few states with weird processes excluded). They had two general election models (not including their nowcast, which was different). One of those was almost solely just a poll aggregator. There were a few elements to the secret sauce, but pretty basic math. The second adds in fundamentals as a base-line for states to revert to over time. For example, prior to this past week or so, a lot of Texas polls showed Biden with a small lead. The fundamentals are 538's way of saying "he might be doing well in Texas now, but Trump is still the strong favorite to win it in November, because Texas is a red state and three months is a long time for Biden to be overperforming". For all of these bits of math, they have past elections they can look at to see how some piece of datum has historically correlated with the end result.
That's why they're able to do so well with the analytical parts of the site even though their punditry is honestly garbage. And that's why, when their general election model comes out, I'll trust them to give a decently reliable forecast.
Where was Obama on the stack ranking of popular Dems at the 2004 convention
The fact that the top of that list includes all these super fucking old and super polarizing and not-good-policy-having people is a giant klaxon that the Dems have no bench strength and it’s going to fuck them approximately negative 4 years from now
Obama is fine, several posts back I made suggestions for how to change the lineup
Someone has to break the cycle y'all.
Edit - I mean writing this issue off as "well it is what it is not even in just our own country!" is nihilism and/or laziness.
They don’t vote even when people try to win them over. Its why the “youth candidate” so often loses in the primary
Look at the speakers for the 2004 convention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_National_Convention_speakers
Just cause everyone only remembers Obama from that convention doesn't mean he was the main or only one speaking. Top speakers were exactly who you'd expect:
Clinton, Carter, Gore, Clinton
Kerry's family
Obama
Edwards and family
Kerry and family
That's your headliners. Former presidents, Nominee and VP, other old big party names. That's always been your headliners. Obama got on their because after his huge victory in his senate race basically everyone was like "this guy gonna be the first black president". And he's an outlier because of that. Everyone else is basically the big old names you expect and all the smaller names and up-and-comers fill out the secondary speakers. That's the way these things generally work.
I think it's more important to look at where the youth candidate lands as opposed to just saying that the youth candidate lost. There's a big difference between a youth candidate that came in second versus a youth candidate that drops out after 2 primaries. Those kind of stats need to be looked at in the nitty gritty rather than going "Well first past the post means that all these youth are zero youth until they hit critical mass to surge past the post"
Maybe directly get them involved in the process, be it the operation of elections or operation of the party (positions that don't require election, etc).
I wish the Democrats would move past the Clintons though. Bill is gross and it's time to retire him and Hillary lost to Trump, though not entirely her fault, I really don't like the reminder. I desperately want to move forward and make Trump's America a bad memory.
The Clintons were 56 and 57
Gore was 56
Carter was 81, only 4 years older than our nominee this year
Edwards was 51
Kerry was 60
Obama was 43
I’m not arguing from ignorance dude- I was an elected democrat myself in 2004!
I’m saying that the party is dying, and not in a slow way, in a super fast and almost already dead way and the fact that 3 of the 7 prime time speakers listed from 16 years/4 pres elections ago are holding spots this year is a symptom of a bad fucking problem
People have been trying to crack this nut for at least 60 years, and it's common across democracies with voluntary voting.
Their lack of engagement is at least in part, part of the human condition.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Keep in mind that youth turnout is low relative to older people everywhere. It's not some crazy American thing where kids would become reliable voters if only someone remembered them.
What you get in practice is the occasional person who comes along and is particularly good at appealing to kids (Obama, Bernie) and they turn out for that person and then go back to ignoring the next election. So if your campaign strategy hinges on boosting youth turnout to the same level as older groups, you're making a big gamble. And making that gamble can be risky. Biden might be able to get more youth voters if he shifts hard left on a lot of issues, but he'd do so at the expense of the (reliable) older vote. That gamble still might not pay off. If he's seen as insincere, he'll end up sacrificing that reliable older vote for little gain. We've seen him moving left and trying to reconcile with progressives, but there's definitely a certain amount of threading the needle.
And a lot of politicians and organizations do engage young voters and work on youth turnout. It's just one part of a broader strategy rather than something they zero in on.
The important factor is just voter turnout percentage. The point of looking at candidates who courted the youth vote is that candidates do actually court the youth vote. Sometimes very aggressively. It just doesn't juice their turnout numbers enough that it really changes the pattern.
Honestly if anything it seems like the main thing changing turnout percentage for the youth is generational turnover.
I'm not sure how saying "this is a well known and understood fact of democracy everywhere and everywhen" is "nihilism and/or laziness."
Obama is also 59, he’s not old!
But they also don’t get more youth! There isn’t huge turnout boost!
Here in Michigan, going to an in-state college ten hours from your registered residence was insufficient to get an absentee ballot. Had to go home if you wanted to vote. People (iirc) over 60 could just ask with no reason and get an absentee ballot.
Youth work jobs that are harder to get time off / come in late / leave early. Or get child care. Or make it to their precinct.
And shit, it was only 50 years ago people 18-21 even got the right to vote with the 26th Amendment.
Maybe we should fix the suppression problem and see where youth end up. It may still be lower, but I'm pretty sure every demographic would have a drop in turnout if they faced the same hurdles.
But there's nothing notable about this lineup. The expected speakers this year are basically the exact same kind of people who were the expected speakers at the 2004 convention. Which was the example you brought up. The age thing doesn't make a difference here because the reason they are speaking is cause they are former presidents and other big names within the party. That's who gets the primetime spots.
This is not a rule! They can change it!
Even if Biden wins there’s a really good chance that Obama is the only living former dem president in 2028 (other than the incumbent), maybe even 2024! They need to recognize that and use these opportunities to promote the next generation of leaders!
I can imagine you lecturing us about corporate succession planning in other threads but you’re digging in here because you reflexively think I’m coming at this from the left flank and this is one of those dem vs left arguments. I’m making a “the Dems would be better off in the not-actually-that-long-term if they bucked history considering the ages of the vanguard and promoted new leaders” argument.
And also with trying to be clever talking about 2016. "Negative four years from now" c'mon :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Like Bill gets elected in 92 and from that point forward they just start building a party machine aligned with their ideals and at least in part built towards eventually getting Hillary elected President (she couldn't run in 2000, she needed to build a resume besides being first lady) and should have seen Gore elected as well.
Obama inspired a lot of people to maybe run for office or get involved but at the end of the day he never really had the party under his control despite being enormously popular.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Again, you can either give up now or keep trying.
I’d also like people like Sharice Davids and Rachel Gonzalez to have a bigger voice in the party.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I mean, if Bernie had been successful at what he was trying to do by activiating the youth vote, he would have smashed Biden.
But he wasn't.
I don't think AOC says crazy things. I hope she speaks!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
you need to form new political machines by building support for the left into people's lives and workplaces. it's something you do all the time, not just in an election year
however i think there's a problem where democrats just look at that kind of organising and go "no, it will never work, people are too dumb"