Democrats 2020

[Elixir]

I used to like Bernie many years ago, because I always think it's good to have a few outliers in Congress. I can't stand him now. Look at his record. What record! He's accomplished very little, and he seems too enamored with himself. He's only a Democrat when it's convenient. He has no administrative experience. If I vote for someone who is too old, it will be Biden, should he run. Biden is old, but he has more experience than anyone else.

I realize that very few younger people will vote for Biden so it's best that he not run, but at this point Bernie makes me want to vomit. And no, it's not because he's liberal, but because he doesn't seem to know how to do much more than stir up crowds and make promises that anyone who's been around for awhile knows he can't keep. I hope he and Biden both swallow their egos, and do their best to support and campaign for the person that wins the nomination regardless of who that ends up being. We just need to get the Dotard out of office.

I also find it very strange that so many young people who bitch about the older generations and declare they want fresh blood, are even considering supporting someone who will be close to 80 by the time he runs. There are many younger liberal candidates to choose from who have enough experience and intelligence to do the job.

Sorry for the rant. I just needed to get that out of my system.

Yeah well... in the unlikely event that he becomes the nominee, I'll have to vote for him. Or whoever it is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But, I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if it's not one that I'm thrilled about.

"Anybody but X" is a recipe for disaster. It gave us the 2016 election.

 

[Opoponax]

But, I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if it's not one that I'm thrilled about.

"Anybody but X" is a recipe for disaster. It gave us the 2016 election.

I will make the bold prediction that the Democratic nominee will be more qualified for the position than Trump when he took office. And when he leaves office... and if he'd been in office for 50 years.

 

[Derec]

I'm pretty sure the Times sill allows anyone to read unlimited articles that are linked.

No, but if you open the article in porn mode incognito window, it does not count toward your monthly free limit.

The above lists the candidates who have declared, the ones who will likely run, are thinking about running, might run, and aren't going to run. Any opinions?

Julian Castro: other than identity politics and a last name that appeals to the AOC wing of the Democratic Party, what does he have? Certainly no experience, and unlikely to get any now that he is out of what little offices he held. And who is going to be his running mate? Brian Guevara?
John Delaney: Who?
Tulsi Gabbard: Already sad a few things about her. Started out moderate, but is sadly running to the nutty left fringe on things like pipelines, telescopes and Israel. Also bad judgment on meeting with chemical weapons using dictators like Assad. Pitty. Would be interesting having a Hindu nominee.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Pushed Al Franken out of Senate and brought a false rape accuser to SOTU. Hell to the no!
Kamala Harris: I very much dislike her crusade against sex work. She is also pushing identity politics hard. Besides, isn't her husband too Jewish for the party of Imran Omar and Rashida Tlaib?
Richard Ojeda: I swear, it's way too easy to declare a run for president.
Elizabeth Warren: She will be 70 in 2020, a year older even than Trump was in 2016. Not as bad as Biden or Bernie, but still rather old.
Cory Booker: major city mayor and senator, so has the experience. I would certainly not discount him. Also, if he plays his cards right, we could have FLOTUS Rosario Dawson.
John Hickenlooper: Funny name, serious candidate, hopefully. Moderate, but from a state that legalized recreational pot. Also started a brewery. And like a certain lesser known governor from Hope, Arkansas, he could emerge as a dark horse. Unlike most politicians, esp. Democrats, not a lawyer, which is certainly refreshing, not unlike his beers, I am sure.
Joe Biden: Really? Will be almost 78 at the time of elections. Hey there Joe Biden, it did not work in 1988, it did not work in 2008, just give up!
Steve Bullock: Don't know anything about him, but could be dark horse governor like Hickenlooper or Inslee.
Eric Garcetti: Only a mayor, but mayor of the 2nd largest US city with population of 4 million, more than almost half the states. However, LA population is politically quite different than the US. I doubt he will play well.
Bernie Sanders: the only man (other than quickly forgotten O'Malley) brave enough to stand against the Ice Queen. However, he will be 80 years old at election time. And quite left-wing too, although he mercifully largely eschews identity politics. Which also gets him quite a bit of flack from certain parts of the base.

I'm not really enthusiastic about any of them at this point, but it looks likely that, considering that women are all fired up and will likely be the more reliable biggest voting block, I tend to think the winner will likely be a woman. Don't worry. Hillary's on the probably won't run list. While she hasn't ruled it out, her friends say that she's not running.

I kinda like Hickenlooper at this point, based on what I know about him. I do not think women should vote for a woman just because of some sort of gender loyalty. Hillary went that route, and it backfired.

But, I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if it's not one that I'm thrilled about.

As will many people, I am sure. But will Greens peel enough disaffected voters if too moderate a candidate is nominated? Or, if somebody very left-wing is nominated, will we have a repeat of McDoesn'tGovern and Dukakis? It's a delicate balance. Democratic voters are fickle creatures, unlike Republicans many of whom went from #neverTrump to "I for one welcome our new orange overlord" damn quick ...

 

[Harry Bosch]

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image. O'Rourke and AOC are night and day in terms of their principles. Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward. It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees, so we might as well pick the most attractive one, or the one who checks the most boxes in terms of group identity.

If Bernie is so damn viable, why doesn't he join a party? Why on earth should the Democrats have nominated someone who cannot even be bothered to join the party? And why the fuck won't Bernie supporters grow the fuck up and recognize that it is not his demeanor but his age and the fact that he doesn't actually belong to a party that has a chance in hell of winning a national election that kept him from the nomination? Oh, I know: it is because that would mean growing the fuck up and actually thinking about anything other than their own skinned knees.

Adulthood: it's not for selfish crybabies.

Agreed. I actually introduced Bernie (and then HRC a week later) to a town hall type of debate near our reservation. Bernie is likable. However, I think that his problem with a wider audience is real simple. He doesn't listen. And he thinks that he knows what is best for everyone else. He started off the discussion with his normal speal that did very well. Then he started getting very detailed questions from the audience that addressed our concerns regarding how government actions affected people on the reservation. He was absolutely unable to listen and then direct his answers to their concerns. He'd listen, then repeat his mantra of "economic justice, the wealthy, must regulate wall street" and etc. Conversely, I found HRC to be warm and open. She listened to our concerns. Then addressed our issues. When the cameras were off, she joked with the crowd and did well. She carried the crowd.

Anyway, the election is over. But again, I think that Bernie's problem is that he only speaks to a particular group. And he just doesn't listen...

 

[southernhybrid]

I kinda like Hickenlooper at this point, based on what I know about him. I do not think women should vote for a woman just because of some sort of gender loyalty. Hillary went that route, and it backfired.

I don't think that's why Hillary lost. People simply didn't like her, and she had a lot of baggage. She was blamed for being too conservative, when she was nothing of the kind. She voted almost exactly the same as Bernie. Maybe her time had just passed and she shouldn't have run, but I don't think her gender was the primary reason she lost. Oh wait. She did win the popular vote, but that means nothing in the US.

But, since we have several qualified female candidates to choose from and since it's past time that we had a female leader, I see nothing wrong with women identifying closer with a female candidate. Of course there are women that I wouldn't vote for, but if I like two candidates equally and one of them is a female, I will probably go for the female.

On the other hand, considering the mess that Trump has made, maybe it's not the best time to have a woman come and clean up the mess. Maybe it's better to make a man clean up the mess that was made by a man.

 

[Derec]

Kamala Harris: For The People is her campaign's home page.

That slogan sounds like it could be from a shady personal injury lawyer. And guess what? It is!

At least she did not go with "Better call Kamala!"

PZ Myers on her: Kamala Harris is a cop.

Kamala was never a cop. Does PZ not understand the difference between police and prosecutors? Did he never watch Law & Order?

DUN DUN!

He linked to Kamala Harris: can a 'top cop' win over progressives in 2020? | US news | The Guardian and said about her:

Sam Levin and Lois Beckett need to learn that difference too I guess ...

Basically, she’s smart, aggressive, and hard working — quite a contrast to the slow-witted sloth in office now — but she’s been consistently pro-police, pro-prisons, and anti-sex workers. Those are things that will definitely appeal to some voters, but not to me.

That Guardian article stated: "In her career as a prosecutor, the Democrat supported increased criminalization of sex work, took no action in key police abuse cases and defended a troubled prison system"

I agree with them completely that her crusade against sex work is bad. No argument with the article there. However ...

But there are other names she does not add to this list, including Alan Blueford, Mario Woods, and Amilcar Perez-Lopez – all victims who were killed in the San Francisco Bay Area, and whose cases Harris could have directly addressed.

Addressed how? The authors imply that every time a police officer shoots a suspect the proper way to "address" it is to prosecute the cop. I.e. there are no justified shootings in their book.
Take Mario Woods. Discussed here at length, but in brief, he was a robber released on parole who stabbed somebody and then refused to disarm when confronted by police who tried using nonlethal means like bean bags to no effect before shooting him.
Alan Blueford was armed with a gun. Perez-Lopez had a large knife and was aggressive toward police and another man. I do not see why there should have been prosecutions in either of these cases.

Jeff Adachi, the public defender of San Francisco, twice urged Harris to open a civil rights investigation into the San Francisco police department, once after a police were caught sending racist and homophobic text messages and again a string of high-profile killings of young people of color by police. “I never received a response,” Adachi said in an email.

Should it matter whether the people killed by police are "of color" or should it matter what the circumstances of individual cases are? The authors seem to think the former.
I also think a lot can be reformed about the prison system, but one doesn't have to be a transphobe to think that expensive elective surgeries (such as gender reassignment) for prisoners on taxpayer dime are not the greatest idea. And I also think that something needs to be done to force neglectful parents to make sure their kids go to school.

Seems like she'd be in a good position to do some hippie-punching, something like what Bill Clinton did with Sister Souljah.

Lisa Williamson advocated killing of white people during the LA Riots and also said that she never met a good white person.
She is a racist, and a rapper, but hardly a hippie. And Bill Clinton was right to call her out on her racist BS.

 

[Derec]

I initially wrote him off out of hand but on closer examination, I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate but potentially as VP and more likely in some cabinet position.

Back to HUD? That way, he might become president if the entire government is wiped out. You know, like Kiefer Sutherland.
I could see Castro as running mate if an older white candidate from the North needs to appeal to Texans, Southerners and non-whites. Biden/Castro or something.

 

[Derec]

She's very pretty and smart and very witty and articulate.

Looks are subjective. Her crazy eyes mar her looks imho.

She's extremely likeable. I'm not sure that's the same thing as taking her seriously. I think that she's very consciously allowing herself to be used as a distraction. More power to her.

If she deliberately acts as a distraction, she will have difficulties to be taken seriously down the line.

I think she's giving young people something and someone to hope for and identify with and I think she'll pull the party left. As it is now, the most left leaning Democrat/Bernie Sanders is still right of where Nixon was on most issues.....That's how far we've fallen.

You really think so? Can you name a few issues where Bernie is further to the right than Richard Milhous?

AOC as POTUS? I dunno. I wonder what she'll be like in 20 years. She's got what? 9 years before she could possibly run. Who knows what that time will bring.

First she will need to show she can win a state-wide office even in a state as liberal and friendly to Democrats as NY. Andrew Cuomo might not run for reelection in 2022 and that might be her first chance, albeit probably too soon. Either Schumer or Gillibrand will probably retire within the next 10 years or so.
Another avenue would be through vice presidency or cabinet posts, but I do not see either in her future anytime soon.

 

[blastula]

Fresh meat.

Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, jumps into 2020 race - CNNPolitics

Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who served in the Navy during the war in Afghanistan, announced on Wednesday that he is launching an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential bid.

Rhodes scholar too. He has a fun name, I'm voting for him.

 

[Derec]

Of all the candidates in the OP list, I'd prefer Governor Hickenlooper. Not only is that a great name, but as a governor he has shown the ability to get things done.

This may the first time you and I agree on something. Shall we toast it with a couple of cold Wynkoops?

 

[Toni]

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image. O'Rourke and AOC are night and day in terms of their principles. Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward. It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees, so we might as well pick the most attractive one, or the one who checks the most boxes in terms of group identity.

If Bernie is so damn viable, why doesn't he join a party? Why on earth should the Democrats have nominated someone who cannot even be bothered to join the party? And why the fuck won't Bernie supporters grow the fuck up and recognize that it is not his demeanor but his age and the fact that he doesn't actually belong to a party that has a chance in hell of winning a national election that kept him from the nomination? Oh, I know: it is because that would mean growing the fuck up and actually thinking about anything other than their own skinned knees.

Adulthood: it's not for selfish crybabies.

Agreed. I actually introduced Bernie (and then HRC a week later) to a town hall type of debate near our reservation. Bernie is likable. However, I think that his problem with a wider audience is real simple. He doesn't listen. And he thinks that he knows what is best for everyone else. He started off the discussion with his normal speal that did very well. Then he started getting very detailed questions from the audience that addressed our concerns regarding how government actions affected people on the reservation. He was absolutely unable to listen and then direct his answers to their concerns. He'd listen, then repeat his mantra of "economic justice, the wealthy, must regulate wall street" and etc. Conversely, I found HRC to be warm and open. She listened to our concerns. Then addressed our issues. When the cameras were off, she joked with the crowd and did well. She carried the crowd.

Anyway, the election is over. But again, I think that Bernie's problem is that he only speaks to a particular group. And he just doesn't listen...

I have found that to be true with a lot of politicians: they really aren't able or willing to stray from their carefully crafted talking points. It makes me lose interest PDQ....

 

[Toni]

Looks are subjective. Her crazy eyes mar her looks imho.


If she deliberately acts as a distraction, she will have difficulties to be taken seriously down the line.

I think she's giving young people something and someone to hope for and identify with and I think she'll pull the party left. As it is now, the most left leaning Democrat/Bernie Sanders is still right of where Nixon was on most issues.....That's how far we've fallen.

You really think so? Can you name a few issues where Bernie is further to the right than Richard Milhous?

AOC as POTUS? I dunno. I wonder what she'll be like in 20 years. She's got what? 9 years before she could possibly run. Who knows what that time will bring.

First she will need to show she can win a state-wide office even in a state as liberal and friendly to Democrats as NY. Andrew Cuomo might not run for reelection in 2022 and that might be her first chance, albeit probably too soon. Either Schumer or Gillibrand will probably retire within the next 10 years or so.
Another avenue would be through vice presidency or cabinet posts, but I do not see either in her future anytime soon.

Short on time: Nixon was in favor of a negative income tax: a minimum basic income for all. Bernie....has not actually stated that he supports that. Instead, he is pretty vague about everyone deserving a minimum standard of living but there are many ways to get to that........no details. No surprise there. For one thing, it's a much different time and nailing yourself to a position is pretty risky....


I am not sure that AOC needs to win a state wide office. She's leapfrogged over that hurdle quite nicely by being elected to a national office. If you mean you think that presidential candidates should have administrative experience, then there's that. I am not so sure I really agree with you there but I understand the point.

 

[Derec]

Short on time: Nixon was in favor of a negative income tax: a minimum basic income for all.

US already has negative effective income tax for many people (many if not most of Romney's infamous 47%) through refundable tax credits like EITC and child tax credit.
Universal basic income is a different idea, and quite controversial.

Bernie....has not actually stated that he supports that. Instead, he is pretty vague about everyone deserving a minimum standard of living but there are many ways to get to that........no details. No surprise there. For one thing, it's a much different time and nailing yourself to a position is pretty risky....

I don't see how Bernie's position on a specific system can be used to show he is to the right of Nixon even if Nixon really did support such a scheme, which I don't think he did.

I am not sure that AOC needs to win a state wide office. She's leapfrogged over that hurdle quite nicely by being elected to a national office.

What national office? Congresscritters are elected in their respective districts. The only people who could vote for or against her lived in NY 14th, which includes parts of Queens and Bronx. Interestingly, it also includes Riker's Island. I wonder if the inmates vote in the 14th or in their respective home districts...
What I meant with statewide office is one where the entire state gets to vote for or against you. That includes officers of the actual state government, but also US senators since they are elected in the entire state at large.
States tend to be more diverse (cities, suburbs, rural areas, red and blue areas etc.) than congressional districts, which can be quite homogeneous. 14th certainly is that.
I think this is one big reason why getting elected straight out of House of Representatives is so rare and has not happened since the 19th century (James Garfield being the last).

If you mean you think that presidential candidates should have administrative experience, then there's that. I am not so sure I really agree with you there but I understand the point.

That's another issue. That's why governors are usually better positioned than senators. There are exceptions, of course. Obama and Kennedy come to mind, but they are rare.
Note that people like Eisenhower and, yes, even Trump ran things: Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, running the armies of several allied nations in the European theater during WWII and Trump has been running businesses, often into the ground, but still.
Oh, and HW briefly ran the CIA.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Looks are subjective. Her crazy eyes mar her looks imho.


If she deliberately acts as a distraction, she will have difficulties to be taken seriously down the line.

I think she's giving young people something and someone to hope for and identify with and I think she'll pull the party left. As it is now, the most left leaning Democrat/Bernie Sanders is still right of where Nixon was on most issues.....That's how far we've fallen.

You really think so? Can you name a few issues where Bernie is further to the right than Richard Milhous?

AOC as POTUS? I dunno. I wonder what she'll be like in 20 years. She's got what? 9 years before she could possibly run. Who knows what that time will bring.

First she will need to show she can win a state-wide office even in a state as liberal and friendly to Democrats as NY. Andrew Cuomo might not run for reelection in 2022 and that might be her first chance, albeit probably too soon. Either Schumer or Gillibrand will probably retire within the next 10 years or so.
Another avenue would be through vice presidency or cabinet posts, but I do not see either in her future anytime soon.

AOC is only 29. She isn't old enough to run for president or vice president. Minimum age is 35.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks are subjective. Her crazy eyes mar her looks imho.

Honorable? ROFL!

 

[Elixir]

AOC is only 29. She isn't old enough to run for president or vice president. Minimum age is 35.

Yabut that's only six years ahead. And it took almost thirty years of mud-slinging to get enough to stick to HRC to keep her out of the White House.
Trumpublicans are panicked because she doesn't couch the truth about their corruption in polite terms, so they are getting to work on her now, and with great fervor. With luck and some help from Uncle Vlad, they might be able to tar her sufficiently in six years. At least they can make an issue of her "crazy eyes", right, Derec? What real Trumpistani man isn't more attracted to lovely Donald's baby blues and soft blonde locks, than to the ugly brown lesbian and her crazy eyes?

 

[PyramidHead]

Here's my take on Bernie: he's the only candidate in the race (even though he hasn't declared himself as running yet) who presents a threat to the Democratic party establishment, as evidenced by their attitude and behavior towards him and his supporters. This is entirely a good thing that needs to happen, and the sooner it does, the better.

He is the only candidate who does not get huge donations from big banks and corporations, which means they would rather have someone else as president. We need to interpret this as the fucking fluorescent blinking neon sign of a point in his favor that it clearly is.

He is the only candidate who is not in favor of endless war overseas. Most Democrats are against wars that Republicans wage, or are against wars that hurt "American interests" on those grounds alone, and will not hesitate to endorse the philosophy of a paternal United States doling out its democracy to the world via smiling drones and perpetual troop presence.

He energized a movement that has put Medicare for all on everybody's lips; we're on the cusp of that being a litmus test for a candidate (as it should be), when just two years ago Hillary announced to roaring applause that it would "never, ever happen". As the other candidates begin to fall in line with weasely pronouncements about "affordable access to health insurance for all", Bernie is still clearly and resolutely campaigning on health care for everyone. Free university education means free university education when he says it, not free for the first two years as long as it's a community college (and nothing to prevent them from simply doubling the price of the next couple of years to make up for the difference). He has helped make a $15 minimum wage a national topic of conversation, which contributed to pressuring Amazon to initiate it as a policy.

Bernie is a social democrat, like AOC, not a socialist, but he calls himself a democratic socialist anyway. This bothers me slightly, but in any case Bernie is the closest thing to an actual socialist by a huge margin. Everyone seems to think that the socialist label is enough to sink him, but year after year, it's becoming more and more palatable to voters--especially Democrats, who favor socialism and capitalism about equally. Just one presidential term ago, this would have been unfathomable. Today, Bernie is the most popular politician in the country as an avowed socialist, and AOC is probably not far behind. The party is shifting to the left, whether the establishment likes it or not.

He is the only candidate who doesn't have to be given some kind of a pass to explain his behavior before he ran for President. Kamala Harris has her gross authoritarian actions as district attorney and "top cop". Beto O'Rourke votes to the right of every candidate in the running and couldn't beat a blobfish with no conscience. Tulsi Gabbard made unfortunate comments about gay marriage, abortion, and Islam that garnered her the support of Steve Bannon, who wanted Trump to install her as secretary of state. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until not too long ago, and is committed above all else to keeping market capitalism running smoothly. Joe Biden will be instantly torpedoed into irrelevance when (not if) somebody #metoo's him. The first thing Karen Gillibrand did before announcing her candidacy was to have a round-table with Wall Street executives to fund her campaign.

Bernie has decades of advocacy for civil rights and economic justice that he has rarely, if ever, wavered from. On every topic that is becoming a hot-button issue in the current political climate, you can probably find Bernie supporting the progressive viewpoint years before anybody else was talking about it. Same-sex marriage is a good example of this.

He is not a perfect candidate, but he is the only candidate that isn't an empty suit, an authoritarian, a warmonger, a slave to Wall Street, a center-right pragmatist, or a no-name. It sucks that this is true, but that doesn't make it not true.

 

[Copernicus]

PH, those are all qualities that you find appealing in a candidate, but I didn't see much effort put into citing his weaknesses (such as less appeal to African/Native/Hispanic voters, who would be needed to get out the vote. Whoever takes the job will need to be energetic, healthy, and well-connected with a network of technical experts in government to repopulate a devastated bureaucracy. I just don't see Sanders in that role. He is more suited for popularizing issues than running a government.

 

[PyramidHead]

PH, those are all qualities that you find appealing in a candidate, but I didn't see much effort put into citing his weaknesses (such as less appeal to African/Native/Hispanic voters, who would be needed to get out the vote. Whoever takes the job will need to be energetic, healthy, and well-connected with a network of technical experts in government to repopulate a devastated bureaucracy. I just don't see Sanders in that role. He is more suited for popularizing issues than running a government.

Those may be valid points, but... there's nobody else. Nobody even comes close to his record or his principles. Who is better with African Americans? Someone who handcuffed himself to one in solidarity during the riots of the 60's and marched with MLK, or someone who incarcerated blacks as attorney general and treated them as free labor? Bernie Sanders is plenty energetic for his age, and simultaneously you don't see too many people bemoaning Biden's age or Beto's being a white male. Getting someone of Bernie's caliber into the position of running a government IS how you popularize the issues that are important to him and his supporters.

Trump has already shown that you don't need to be well-connected to the political establishment to galvanize a base of radical voters. The days of the savvy technocrat, the statesman, the Obama or the Kerry or Lieberman, are behind us now. Everyone in the race is treating this election like it's another 2008, and all you need to do is get people on board with hope and change as abstract ideals; nobody's falling for that anymore. It didn't prevent Trump and didn't fix our broken system. Unless and until literally one person with Bernie's credibility, incorruptibility, and popularity becomes a serious contender, there is just plainly and simply nobody else.