Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


andym's Journal
andym's Journal
March 6, 2020

The Age Gap and preference for Democratic Nominee--a poll. Explanations?

The latest poll from Morning Consult shows a large age gap in candidate preferences. 70% of Democrats over age 45 favor Joe Biden, while 57% of those younger than 45 favor Bernie Sanders.

So what is your preference and to which age group do you belong?

Please post any comments on why you think there is an age gap.

March 5, 2020

Elizabeth Warren's email about her campaign to her supporters.

I’m going to start with the news. I wanted you to hear it straight from me: today, I’m suspending our campaign for president.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for everything you have poured into this campaign.

I know that when we set out, this was not the news you ever wanted to hear. It is not the news I ever wanted to share. But I refuse to let disappointment blind me — or you — to what we’ve accomplished. We didn’t reach our goal, but what we have done together — what you have done — has made a lasting difference. It’s not the scale of the difference we wanted to make, but it matters — and the changes will have ripples for years to come.

What we have done — and the ideas we have launched into the world, the way we have fought this fight, the relationships we have built — will carry through for the rest of this election, and the one after that, and the one after that.

So think about it:

We have shown that it is possible to build a grassroots movement that is accountable to supporters and activists and not to wealthy donors — and to do it fast enough for a first-time candidate to build a viable campaign. Never again can anyone say that the only way that a newcomer can get a chance to be a plausible candidate is to take money from corporate executives and billionaires. That’s done.

We have shown that it is possible to inspire people with big ideas, possible to call out what’s wrong and to lay out a path to make this country live up to its promise.

We have shown that race and justice — economic justice, social justice, environmental justice, criminal justice — are not an afterthought, but are at the heart of everything that we do.

We have shown that a woman can stand up, hold her ground, and stay true to herself — no matter what.

We have shown that we can build plans in collaboration with the people who are most affected.

This campaign became something special, and it wasn’t because of me. It was because of you. I am so proud of how you fought this fight alongside me: you fought it with empathy and kindness and generosity — and of course, with enormous passion and grit.

Some of you may remember that long before I got into electoral politics, I was asked if I would accept a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was weak and toothless. And I replied that my first choice was a consumer agency that could get real stuff done, and my second choice was no agency and lots of blood and teeth left on the floor. In this campaign, we have been willing to fight, and, when necessary, we left plenty of blood and teeth on the floor. I can think of one billionaire who has been denied the chance to buy this election.

And we did all of this without selling access for money. Together, you and 1,250,000 people gave more than $112 million dollars to support this campaign. And we did it without selling one minute of my time to the highest bidder. People said that would be impossible. But you did that.

Together, we built a grassroots campaign that had some of the most ambitious organizing targets ever — and then we turned around and surpassed them.

Our staff and volunteers on the ground knocked on over 22 million doors across the country. We made 20 million phone calls and sent more than 42 million texts to voters. That’s truly astonishing. It is.

We also advocated for fixing our rigged system in a way that will make it work better for everyone.

A year ago, people weren’t talking about a two-cent wealth tax, Universal Child Care, cancelling student loan debt for 43 million Americans while reducing the racial wealth gap, breaking up big tech, or expanding Social Security. And now they are. And because we did the work of building broad support for all of those ideas across this country, these changes could actually be implemented by the next president.

A year ago, people weren’t talking about corruption, and they still aren’t talking about it enough — but we’ve moved the needle, and a hunk of our anti-corruption plan is already embedded in a House bill that is ready to go when we get a Democratic Senate.

And we also did it by having fun and by staying true to ourselves. We ran from the heart. We ran on our values. We ran on treating everyone with respect and dignity. But it was so much more. Four-hour selfie lines and pinky promises with little girls. A wedding at one of our town halls. And we were joyful and positive through all of it. We ran a campaign not to put people down, but to lift them up — and I loved pretty much every minute of it.

I may not be in the race for president in 2020, but this fight — our fight — is not over. And our place in this fight has not ended.

Because for every young person who is drowning in student debt, for every family struggling to pay the bills on two incomes, for every mom worried about paying for prescriptions or putting food on the table, this fight goes on.

For every immigrant and African American and Muslim and Jewish person and Latinx and transwoman who sees the rise in attacks on people who look or sound or worship like them, this fight goes on.

For every person alarmed by the speed with which climate change is bearing down upon us, this fight goes on.

And for every American who desperately wants to see our nation healed and some decency and honor restored to our government, this fight goes on.

When I voted on Tuesday at the elementary school down the street, a mom came up to me. She said she has two small children, and they have a nightly ritual. After the kids have brushed teeth and read books and gotten that last sip of water and done all the other bedtime routines, they do one last thing before the two little ones go to sleep: Mama leans over them and whispers, “Dream big.” And the children together reply, “Fight hard.”

So if you leave with only one thing, it must be this: Choose to fight only righteous fights, because then when things get tough — and they will — you will know that there is only option ahead of you: nevertheless, you must persist.

You should be so proud of what we’ve done together — what you have done over this past year.

Our work continues, the fight goes on, and big dreams never die.

Thanks for being a part of this,


March 1, 2020

538 now predicts a 3 in 5 chance that no one wins on the first ballot-- caucus-like convention

1 in 4 chance for Bernie to win outright
1 in 7 chance for Biden to win outright
less than 1 in 100 chance for any of the others to win outright


So what happens is that to a large extent the convention will become like a caucus-- with inviable candidate thresholds etc, on subsequent ballots. There is one difference: superdelegates could play a role as well as on the second ballot there would be 764 (771?) delegates added to the pool-- which would presumably raise the threshold for winning. It might be interesting if superdelegates decided to sit out subsequent rounds, forcing the campaigns and their elected delegates to negotiate.

1991 delegates required on first ballot
2375.5 delegates required on second ballot
source: ballotpedia
are these numbers correct?

March 1, 2020

Two votes in my family for Liz in CA by mail today.

Hope she does well on Super Tuesday.

February 28, 2020

I never appreciated that a party's nominee is not only for President but for head of the party

if they win. Of course they do not officially hold the DNC chairmanship, but the chair of both parties almost always defers to the President of their own party.

Now it's generally, not always true. For example, when Jimmy Carter was President, it never seemed he was head of the Democratic Party as he faced quite a bit of opposition to his ideas in Congress, which was controlled by Democrats. In the end he was unsuccessfully primaried by Ted Kennedy. But Carter is the exception, LBJ was clearly both President and party chief. Trump is an extreme example for Republicans, with almost every Republican kowtowing to him.

I'm not sure that the electorate understands this dual role completely. It would be very interesting to hear what each candidate has to say about how they would lead the party at a debate. Many posts here seem to be concerned about the latter role, and how the nominee would promote down ticket races or not.

February 23, 2020

The big "Mo" in primaries has been the story in the primaries for years (right or wrongly)

That's why it was so predictable that Mayor Pete and Bernie emerged after Iowa, why Biden lost steam nationally (not as badly as Dean did in 2004, thankfully for Joe, who I think is a great candidate), why Bernie emerged as the front runner after NH, and why Bernie is going to be on a roll after Nevada (given the results we ware seeing), and why the second place finisher will call themselves the comeback "kid"-- probably Biden, and may get some serious boost.

"Mo"= momentum

February 21, 2020

President and VP acting as effective Co-Presidents?

In 1980, Ronald Reagan considered former President Ford as a potential effective co-President-- at one point the GOP convention entertained the idea of a VP who would be more like a President (Reagan/Ford).
[I edited this post correcting the history]

The idea originally comes from the corporate world. For example, https://www.fastcompany.com/3068272/are-co-ceos-a-great-ideaA-or-a-total-disaster

If the Democratic convention does not have a first ballot nominee this year, should the possibility of having the Democratic nominee and VP act as co-Presidents if elected to win the election and placate various wings/party interests? Of course such a scenario would have to be carefully planned as to which duties belonged to whom, and one person would still technically be the President.

Understand that technically one person would be President and the other the Vice-President, it would just be that the Vice-Presdient's role would be expanded and the President's role decreased by mutual agreement. At any time the actual President could end such a deal technically.

February 17, 2020

What's been missing as a focus of the Democratic platform for years is catalyzing financial success

by directing providing more opportunities through the market system itself. How? By creating new programs (grants/loans/education) at the Small Business Administration directed to allowing everyday middle and working class citizens to become entrepreneurs for example (even as a sideline). Making this a major focus would be both traditional and progressive.

That said the availability of free/affordable college, or night school or trade school is consistent with this goal--and that does get some focus these days from at least Sanders and Warren.

The availability of really affordable healthcare is also important for upward mobility. How can one take risks needed to create small businesses for example, if one's family lacks needed healthcare? The ACA is only a beginning here--the good news is that most of our candidates support expanding government's role--which is smart, as Elizabeth Warren emphasizes many aspects of our economy work best with a market approach, others like health care would work better with a socialized approach.

January 31, 2020

Vote to censure?

After impeachment fails to remove Trump (or maybe before), should Senator Schumer request a vote to censure Trump for inappropriate behavior,which Senator Alexander acknowledged tonight. Would it garner a majority? That would take his "exoneration" away.

November 20, 2019

Not certain that the Senate will remove Trump-- even now

Look at these ridiculous headlines on CNN:

"GOP senator: "I don't necessarily agree" with Trump's actions"
Good that he doesn't "agree" with bribery.

"These GOP senators say they haven't watched the hearing"



Conryn's full quote:
“I don’t necessarily agree with it. But you can disagree with the action and ... believe (that) this is not a reason to tear the country in two a year before the election.”


Fortunately Trump is definitely getting impeached by the House with full justification.

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 26, 2003, 09:31 PM
Number of posts: 5,372

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»andym's Journal