How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter

[Cow Poke]

How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


I thought this was interesting.



Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

Screenshot_2019-10-17 How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter.png

Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.

[rogue06]

How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


I thought this was interesting.



Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40301[/ATTACH]

Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.

IIRC the slate of candidates supported by AOC in 2018 did not fare that well.

Anywho, the Hill's Krystal Ball has an interesting take:

Source: Krystal Ball reacts to Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders: 'Class power over girl power'

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


I thought this was interesting.

FiveThirtyEight has been tracking endorsements throughout the Democratic primary. There have been more than 150 of these so far, out of the fairly broad universe of potential endorsers that weÂ’re monitoring. But most endorsements donÂ’t make national news.

Tuesday night was an exception — probably the first time all cycle that an endorsement has led the news cycle. Just as the fourth debate was concluding, reports surfaced that at least two of the four members of the “The Squad,” a group of first-term congresswomen who are outspokenly on the left of their party and often critique their party’s leadership, would be endorsing Bernie Sanders. Specifically, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has already officially announced her endorsement of Sanders, and Rep. Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez of New York will reportedly endorse Sanders at a rally in Queens this weekend. (Contrary to earlier reports, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has not yet officially endorsed Sanders. A fourth member of “The Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, has no imminent plans to endorse Sanders or anyone else.)

I have quite a few thoughts about this, which partly go to how I think SandersÂ’s campaign, and Elizabeth WarrenÂ’s, are going overall. If you want a takeaway headline, though, itÂ’s basically that this is the kind of thing IÂ’d want to see more of from Sanders. In other words, itÂ’s good news for him, but it will be better news for him to the extent it presages a more coalition-oriented approach to running a campaign, which includes building alliances with diverse groups of voters and winning endorsements in an effort to expand his coalition. If, on the other hand, it signals a desire by Sanders to provoke an establishment vs. anti-establishment confrontation with Warren, IÂ’m not sure thatÂ’s as helpful to him. OK, here we go: Nine quick-ish thoughts about the AOC and Omar endorsements of Sanders:

1. There’s reason to think endorsements matter. Historically, endorsements have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes, often rivaling early polls for how well they anticipate how the vote will eventually turn out. The theory behind the importance of endorsements, as perhaps best articulated in the book “The Party Decides”, has come under attack in recent years, mostly because Donald Trump’s nomination in 2016 despite a lack of support from Republican endorsers was a poor data point for the theory (to put it kindly). In addition, some Democrats who received a number of endorsements earlier this year, such as Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, have not yet gained much traction in the polls. Nonetheless, the theory has a fairly good long-term track record. Incidentally, the theory is not necessarily that the endorsements directly influence voters — for instance, that a voter says to herself “Senator Such-and-Such is endorsing Governor So-and-So; guess I’m going to vote for So-and-So!”. (Although, an endorser with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez could be an exception.) Rather, it’s that endorsements are a proxy for support from “party elites,” and that party elites’ preferences tend to be a leading indicator of voter preferences.

2. But endorsements matter more when they cross ideological lines — and these ones were more predictable for Sanders. Imagine that, rather than AOC and Omar, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had endorsed Sanders on Tuesday night. That would have been quite surprising, given that Manchin is fairly conservative while Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. It would have sent a signal, however, that Sanders’s populism could resonate beyond his left-leaning base. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, by contrast, are more in line with Sanders’s current base, being both quite left-of-center and quick to rebuke the Democratic Party establishment. Those sorts of endorsements matter less, according to “The Party Decides.”

3. The timing was smart for Sanders, and will help to fend off the media narrative that his chances are fading. This is a very pundit-y type of observation, so I’ll be brief. But dropping these endorsements after a fairly strong debate for Sanders1 — and after concerns about the long-term viability of his campaign following his heart attack — strikes me as smart. It could contribute toward a “Bernie comeback!” narrative, especially if Sanders gets a boost in post-debate polls.

4. This is going to intensify intra-left fighting. Want a fairly safe prediction? The primary is going to get nastier. In my read of the various Warren vs. Sanders spats, they’re less about who is further to the left per se and more about how to achieve change, with Warren wanting to work within the Democratic Party and Sanders wanting to upend the Democratic Party and “the system” overall. (To bring about a “political revolution,” as Sanders might say.) One reason I’ve been skeptical about Sanders’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is that while seeking to upend the system is perfectly valid as a theory of change, it’s a fairly hard way to win a party primary when the party sets the rules, those rules are designed to achieve consensus rather than to reward factional candidates, and voting is restricted in many states to party members. In any event, because Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have a somewhat anti-establishment message — although less so than Sanders himself does — their endorsements are likely to send additional tremors down emerging Sanders-Warren fault lines.

5. “The Squad” is a potential general election liability. A July poll by YouGov found all four members of “The Squad” with negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters. (I’d love to cite a wider sample of polls, but I can’t find many others that asked about Omar, Tlaib or Pressley. A number of earlier polls on Ocasio-Cortez found her with negative ratings, however.) They are reasonably popular among Democrats, of course, and Sanders’s objective for now is to win the nomination, not the general election. His campaign has sometimes tried to emphasize his “electability”, however, and these endorsements won’t necessarily be helpful in that respect.

Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40301[/ATTACH]

Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.

Most people couldn't even tell you who the so called squad is, so I wouldn't put much stock in that poll. But there isn't much difference between Sanders and Warren anyway, they are both phenomenal campaigners and progressives love them both, so I don't think it matters too much to progressives which one of them ends up on top, just so long as one of them does.

[Cow Poke]

Most people couldn't even tell you who the so called squad is, so I wouldn't put much stock in that poll. But there isn't much difference between Sanders and Warren anyway, they are both phenomenal campaigners and progressives love them both, so I don't think it matters too much to progressives which one of them ends up on top, just so long as one of them does.

It will be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren go to battle with each other.

As Bernie Sanders scores AOC and Michael Moore endorsements, is a clash with Warren inevitable?

[JimL]

It will be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren go to battle with each other.

As Bernie Sanders scores AOC and Michael Moore endorsements, is a clash with Warren inevitable?

Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.

To those who see them both as possibilities, I would think they'd see Sanders as an angry old man who just had a heart attack, and Warren as an energetic and enthusiastic version of Bernie.

[Starlight]

Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.

I see 4 main differences...
1. Sanders has more experience in politics. Warren is a fast-learner but still a little green around the ears within the political scene. So I would quite like to see Warren as Sanders' VP for a while before she took the Presidency.

2. Sanders is appropriately cautious and skeptical about recent US foreign policy (e.g. opposed the Iraq War etc), and wants a bit more of a sane and non-interventionist-leaning foreign policy going forward, and is appropriately critical of Israel and of excessive US military spending. Whereas Warren seems to have drunk the standard US foreign-policy kool-aid of war is always good, the US needs an infinitely sized military regardless of cost, and that it is impossible for Israel to do anything wrong.

3. Warren seems to be all over the place on healthcare and can't quite seem to be certain from one week to the next whether she supports medicare for all. She seems to want to do something left-ish on healthcare but seems to be being open to being swayed by lobbyists and congressional peer-pressure as to what exactly that might be. Whereas Bernie is quite sure of his medicare-for-all stance which seems pretty ideal.

4. Sanders is a skeptic of capitalism to an extent Warren is not. This manifests as a difference in how strongly they support unions (ie Sanders more so), and how focused they are on making sure everyone in the US has an equal opportunity to be successful (ie Sanders more so). While there's no hint Sanders is planning any captial-S Socialist policies, he seems more enthusiastic than Warren about adopting policies that have worked well elsewhere in the Western world to make capitalist societies more free and fair by introducing some small-s elements of socialism.

For all 4 of those reasons I prefer Sanders to Warren, though I would consider Warren adequate. I think Warren would easily be the best US president of my lifetime. Whereas Sanders would likely be the best US president of the century.

[JimL]

To those who see them both as possibilities, I would think they'd see Sanders as an angry old man who just had a heart attack,

You say that like it's a bad thing. The people are angry about the corrupt government as well. But you're right to a certain degree, many people vote for stupid reasons.

and Warren as an energetic and enthusiastic version of Bernie.

Pretty much, they both understand how the government has been corrupted by corporate interests and is not working in the best interests of the people and both are out to change that.

[Cow Poke]

You say that like it's a bad thing. The people are angry about the corrupt government as well. But you're right to a certain degree, many people vote for stupid reasons.

I think a WHOLE BUNCH of people vote for stupid reasons -- I remember one study years ago that indicated that people always voted for the taller of the two candidates.

Pretty much, they both understand how the government has been corrupted by corporate interests and is not working in the best interests of the people and both are out to change that.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the corruption, they're simply going to go on a "vote for me and get FREE STUFF".

[rogue06]

I think a WHOLE BUNCH of people vote for stupid reasons -- I remember one study years ago that indicated that people always voted for the taller of the two candidates.

Another showed that many people pick the one with the best hair which caused John Kerry to remark at least once about how he and Edwards had better hair than Bush and Cheney.

I often wonder what percentage of the voters base their selection on the candidate's skin color, sex, where they're from and other similar criteria rather than on what their political philosophy is. I figure I'd be quite depressed at the answer.

[JimL]

I think a WHOLE BUNCH of people vote for stupid reasons -- I remember one study years ago that indicated that people always voted for the taller of the two candidates.

Yes, and the con man currently in the White House shows exactly what can happen when people vote for stupid reasons.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the corruption, they're simply going to go on a "vote for me and get FREE STUFF".

Not true, they speak of the corruption at every campaign stop, at every rally. Surely you've heard them speak of the corruption in government. And that they are promising free stuff is just the republican mantra and not really worth addressing unless you want to be specific.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, and the con man currently in the White House shows exactly what can happen when people vote for stupid reasons.

Many of us voted "for" him for quite legitimate reasons, Jim. You obviously don't agree with the sanctity of human life with regards to abortion, but that was a very good reason. If Hillary hadn't ALSO been such a corrupt politician, it would have been much more difficult to defend voting for Trump.

Not true, they speak of the corruption at every campaign stop, at every rally.

Yes, "they speak". What are they actually going to do about it when the government crumbles because their socialism destroys society?

Surely you've heard them speak of the corruption in government.

Words, Jim. Promises. All politicians promise stuff they can't deliver.

And that they are promising free stuff is just the republican mantra and not really worth addressing unless you want to be specific.

Be specific? Might want to pass that on to Warren - she seems quite incapable of being specific about, for example, how she's going to pay for her "FREE EVERYTHING". Even other Democrats are frustrated with her inability to be specific.

[JimL]

Many of us voted "for" him for quite legitimate reasons, Jim. You obviously don't agree with the sanctity of human life with regards to abortion, but that was a very good reason. If Hillary hadn't ALSO been such a corrupt politician, it would have been much more difficult to defend voting for Trump.

Yes, but we are not talking about the many of us who vote for quite legitimate reasons, we're talking about the many who vote for ridiculous reasons. And Hillary was, for 30 years, demonized by republicans, but there is little actual evidence of her being corrupt, certainly no where near as corrupt as Trump. Btw, after losing the election partly due to it, and years of investigating her, along with the demonization from the GOP over it, she's just been found not guilty of the E-Mail scam!

Yes, "they speak". What are they actually going to do about it when the government crumbles because their socialism destroys society?

They're not president yet, CP, and they can't do it alone, but Warren created the Consumer Protection Agency which has returned billions in corporate rip offs back to the victims. So yes, they talk, they advocate in Congress, and sometimes they get the change they are fighting for. As President, with the will of the people behind them, they'll have a bit more power to do so. Ever hear of the ACA?

Words, Jim. Promises. All politicians promise stuff they can't deliver.

Then why do you even vote?

Be specific? Might want to pass that on to Warren - she seems quite incapable of being specific about, for example, how she's going to pay for her "FREE EVERYTHING". Even other Democrats are frustrated with her inability to be specific.

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday her campaign will release a plan to pay for the Medicare-for-all health proposal she’s backed ‘in the next few weeks,’ but she continued to deflect questions about whether middle-class taxes would go up,” the Washington Post reports.

“That promise comes after weeks of attacks from other Democratic candidates in the presidential race, who say Warren is not being honest with voters about how she would fund the massive health-care plan.”

“The lag in unveiling a payment plan speaks to the difficult position Warren is in: She can either offer some kind of large tax above her wealth tax on the very rich or be pegged as evasive about a major element of her platform. Both carry political risks.”

The payment plan is obviously higher taxes, particularly on the ultra wealthy, which she has made clear over and over again, but the lower cost of healthcare will offset any small rise in middle class taxes. The only thing she hasn't done is to put out the exact specifics/details of the plan. No one has. And the FREE EVERTHING mantra is getting old, CP. We pay taxes to benefit society as a whole.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, but we are not talking about the many of us who vote for quite legitimate reasons, we're talking about the many who vote for ridiculous reasons. And Hillary was, for 30 years, demonized by republicans, but there is little actual evidence of her being corrupt, certainly no where near as corrupt as Trump. Btw, after losing the election partly due to it, and years of investigating her, along with the demonization from the GOP over it, she's just been found not guilty of the E-Mail scam!

And she endlessly blames everybody but herself for her loss.

They're not president yet, CP, and they can't do it alone, but Warren created the Consumer Protection Agency which has returned billions in corporate rip offs back to the victims. So yes, they talk, they advocate in Congress, and sometimes they get the change they are fighting for. As President, with the will of the people behind them, they'll have a bit more power to do so. Ever hear of the ACA?

You mean that incredibly expensive program that got rammed through congress in the middle of the night in spite of POTUS Obama PROMISING that all legislation would be transparent and posted on the web for 3 days (or whatever) prior to any vote?

Then why do you even vote?

In this past election, you know exactly why I voted, Jim.

A) Hillary isn't POTUS
2) SCOTUS isn't Hillary's

The payment plan is obviously higher taxes, particularly on the ultra wealthy, which she has made clear over and over again, but the lower cost of healthcare will offset any small rise in middle class taxes. The only thing she hasn't done is to put out the exact specifics/details of the plan. No one has. And the FREE EVERTHING mantra is getting old, CP. We pay taxes to benefit society as a whole.

Jim, why do you supposed that even her fellow liberals are calling her out on her inability to explain how, exactly, she's going to pay for her "FREE EVERYTHING"? Even they know it can't be done. And why do you think she keeps dodging the "how ya gonna pay for it" questions?

[JimL]

And she endlessly blames everybody but herself for her loss.

Well, she may point to reasons other than herself, which as we all know, there are other reasons, particularly when taking into account that she is much more popular than Trump and won the majority by 3 MILLION votes. That doesn't mean she couldn't have done more, it just means that there were other reasons. There was the Russian interference, the 3rd party candidate, (Jill Stein) and of course the ridiculous electoral college.

You mean that incredibly expensive program that got rammed through congress in the middle of the night in spite of POTUS Obama PROMISING that all legislation would be transparent and posted on the web for 3 days (or whatever) prior to any vote?

No, I mean the Consumer Protection Bureau which protects consumers from the corrupt practices of corporate america.

In this past election, you know exactly why I voted, Jim.

A) Hillary isn't POTUS
2) SCOTUS isn't Hillary's

Then you are contradicting yourself when you implied it's all just promises.

Jim, why do you supposed that even her fellow liberals are calling her out on her inability to explain how, exactly, she's going to pay for her "FREE EVERYTHING"? Even they know it can't be done. And why do you think she keeps dodging the "how ya gonna pay for it" questions?

Because they are running against her, CP! What would you expect them to say. And I suppose the reason that she has avoided making it clear that taxes are involved is because the term (taxes) have become a dirty word and must be explained in detail for people to understand how their overall cost will go down. It's a class war, and the middle class and the poor have been losing that war for decades. The wealthy are going to start paying their fair share if any democrat is elected, even more so if Warren or Sanders are elected.