Democrats 2020

[angelo]

Aside from 1964, California was a reliably Republican state in every presidential election until 1992, when it was carried by Bill Clinton. The state has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992, usually by lopsided margins. [source wiki]

I'm certain you'd be happy if the Dems were in power continuously since 1992? This is exactly why the smaller states should also have a say wouldn't you think!

California has never voted for anything. California citizens have voted. Nice try at a dodge though.

Good tactic of diversion! Ever thought of becoming a politician?

 

[ZiprHead]

Aside from 1964, California was a reliably Republican state in every presidential election until 1992, when it was carried by Bill Clinton. The state has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992, usually by lopsided margins. [source wiki]

I'm certain you'd be happy if the Dems were in power continuously since 1992? This is exactly why the smaller states should also have a say wouldn't you think!

California has never voted for anything. California citizens have voted. Nice try at a dodge though.

Good tactic of diversion! Ever thought of becoming a politician?

You are the one diverting by saying "California voted" for something. States don't vote, people do.

California is diverse. People in southern areas tend to vote progressively. Those in the northern areas. Are more conservative. Your saying that because the majority don't vote conservative, they're votes should count less.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aside from 1964, California was a reliably Republican state in every presidential election until 1992, when it was carried by Bill Clinton. The state has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992, usually by lopsided margins. [source wiki]

I'm certain you'd be happy if the Dems were in power continuously since 1992? This is exactly why the smaller states should also have a say wouldn't you think!

Texas and Florida aren't as small as they look on your maps.

They are population wise as compared to NY and California.

I’m amazed of your confidence level in spite of the ignorance.

 

[angelo]

Good tactic of diversion! Ever thought of becoming a politician?

You are the one diverting by saying "California voted" for something. States don't vote, people do.

California is diverse. People in southern areas tend to vote progressively. Those in the northern areas. Are more conservative. Your saying that because the majority don't vote conservative, they're votes should count less.

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

 

[zorq]

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

So exactly how little should a vote from a Californian be worth? Half the vote of a Nebraskan? One quarter?

How about three-fifths?

 

[angelo]

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

So exactly how little should a vote from a Californian be worth? Half the vote of a Nebraskan? One quarter?

How about three-fifths?

Currently, there are 538 electors; based on 435 representatives, 100 senators, and three electors allocated to Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20).

As can be seen in the following Wiki site, California alone would dominate American politics were it not for the college vote system.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California

 

[lpetrich]

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson? She seems to me almost like a honky version of Oprah Winfrey. In fact, MW has appeared on OW's TV show.

Welcome - Marianne Williamson Marianne Williamson for President | Join the Evolution  Marianne Williamson
Oprah.com  Oprah Winfrey

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

So exactly how little should a vote from a Californian be worth? Half the vote of a Nebraskan? One quarter?

How about three-fifths?

Currently, there are 538 electors; based on 435 representatives, 100 senators, and three electors allocated to Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20).

As can be seen in the following Wiki site, California alone would dominate American politics were it not for the college vote system.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California

That can't possibly be true seeing that California doesn't dominate policy in the House of Representatives. California represents about 12% of the nation's population. So while a hefty sum, far from dominating.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good tactic of diversion! Ever thought of becoming a politician?

You are the one diverting by saying "California voted" for something. States don't vote, people do.

California is diverse. People in southern areas tend to vote progressively. Those in the northern areas. Are more conservative. Your saying that because the majority don't vote conservative, they're votes should count less.

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

The citizens of small states have the same vote as the citizens of California, one person, one vote. What's wrong with that?

 

[Worldtraveller]

They are population wise as compared to NY and California.

I’m amazed of your confidence level in spite of the ignorance.

Allow me to introduce you to my friends, Dunning and Krueger.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying that at all. Simply put, I'm saying that the smaller [in population] states should also have a say in electing a president. Doing otherwise would ensure states such as California alone would elect a president without the smaller states having any say at all.

The citizens of small states have the same vote as the citizens of California, one person, one vote. What's wrong with that?

We keep asking this question, they keep ignoring/deflecting.

 

[Derec]

Let's see what the pre-politics careers of the 2016 Republicans were:

I do not think it is that fruitful to look at such a large field, because there are many also-rans with no chance to actually win. Better would be to look at people who actually won the presidency or at least the nomination for their respective parties.

Also, you count Elizabeth Warren as not being a lawyer. I would say somebody who got their JD, passed the bar, and then taught law counts as lawyer for the purposes of this discussion.

So both parties' candidates include plenty of lawyers and plenty of business leaders. Meaning that if one subscribes to an ideology of "business leaders good, lawyers bad", one will find it hard to choose.

I do not think it's as simple as "business leaders good, lawyers bad". But I do think that it is bad when top-tier politicians of one party belong so overwhelmingly to one profession/educational track. Here is what I wrote in the Mayor Pete thread about this.

My problem is that Democrats are way too dependent on lawyers for their top tier politicians. Certainly much more than Republicans. Of the last four Republican presidents, none were lawyers, but of last 4 Democratic ones, half were lawyers. Note that polarization is relatively recent, because before 1980 there were more lawyer Republican presidents and more non-lawyer Democratic ones. Both Democratic presidents since 1980, Obama and Clinton, were lawyers, while LBJ and Carter were not. Furthermore, the 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary, was a lawyer, as were John Kerry (2004), Michael Dukakis (1988) and Walter Mondale (1984). Al Gore (2000) wasn't a lawyer, but even he attended law school without completing it. So, Democratic presidents and nominees have been a bit one note for the last 40-odd years!

That lack of educational/professional diversity can give rise to a certain groupthink. That groupthink can manifest in in giving perks to the lawyerly guild like the extremely lucrative "punitive damages" (which do not exist in this form anywhere else) or the fact that US is the 2nd most over-lawyered country in the world (after Israel). But the lack of intellectual diversity can infect and affect discussion of all kinds of issues that the government faces.

 

[RavenSky]

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson? She seems to me almost like a honky version of Oprah Winfrey. In fact, MW has appeared on OW's TV show.

Welcome - Marianne Williamson Marianne Williamson for President | Join the Evolution  Marianne Williamson
Oprah.com  Oprah Winfrey

I don't know enough about her yet.

 

[lpetrich]

The subtle misogyny of the Pete Buttigieg swoon – Michael Greiner – Medium - "The young mayor of a small midwestern city is favored to win the Democratic nomination for President? Really?"

According to the Las Vegas oddsmakers, the favorites to win the Democratic nomination for President are, in this order, Sanders, Harris, Buttitieg, Biden, O’Rourke and Yang. Note that only one of these candidates is a woman, Kamala Harris.

To me, this is unbelievable considering the amazingly impressive group of female candidates participating in this race. Consider the fact that you have four women who represent major states in the U.S. Senate running, only one of whom is considered viable, according to the oddsmakers.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar. I'd add Tulsi Gabbard.

I like Elizabeth Warren the best. She has some serious proposals on what to do about our troubles.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The subtle misogyny of the Pete Buttigieg swoon – Michael Greiner – Medium - "The young mayor of a small midwestern city is favored to win the Democratic nomination for President? Really?"

According to the Las Vegas oddsmakers, the favorites to win the Democratic nomination for President are, in this order, Sanders, Harris, Buttitieg, Biden, O’Rourke and Yang. Note that only one of these candidates is a woman, Kamala Harris.

To me, this is unbelievable considering the amazingly impressive group of female candidates participating in this race. Consider the fact that you have four women who represent major states in the U.S. Senate running, only one of whom is considered viable, according to the oddsmakers.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar. I'd add Tulsi Gabbard.

I like Elizabeth Warren the best. She has some serious proposals on what to do about our troubles.

Do you have any good reason to suspect that this is out of misogyny?

In the previous election, my assessment was that Clinton was very probably going to be the nominee, not Sanders. Then, my assessment was that she very probably was going to be the POTUS, rather than Trump. I think that, on the basis of the information available to me (what I had read, watched, etc.), the assessments were rational, even if Trump won. And certainly these were not assessments out of misandry.

Well, now, I reckon it is very probable that the nominee will be a man, though I reckon any given candidate is very unlikely to get the nomination. But I think Buttigieg has better odds than any woman but Harris. I do not give Buttigieg over 5% chance. But I do not give Warren or any of the others even that. Harris is in a better position than Buttigieg, I reckon, though not by much.

I see no good reason to see misogyny in the bets (I mean, sure, some of them might be out of misogyny, but to make the general claim is unwarranted).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Tulsi Gabbard on nuclear power:

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/tulsi-gabbard-on-nuclear-power-plants/

Also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/climate-change-2020-democratic-candidates.html

7. Do you think nuclear energy should be part of the U.S.’s decarbonizing toolbox? Do you support the construction of new nuclear energy plants? Providing federal support to keep existing ones online? If not, why not?

Gabbard: No. No. No. Concerns over nuclear waste, and investments should go into renewable energy infrastructure and creating new jobs in a truly green energy economy.

Additionally, she would try to ban fracking, and new natural gas exploration, so it seems there would be no way to back up the solar and wind - which, unlike nuclear, need natural gas due to intermittence -, other than importing gas instead of extracting it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3671?q={"search":"3671"}&r=1

ETA:

I addressed Gabbard because you added her to the group, but I now see there is considerable support in the thread for Sanders as well. So, here's Sanders on nuclear energy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...ernie_sanders_democratic_candidate/?limit=500

I believe that climate change is perhaps the most significant planetary crisis that we face and we have got to be extremely bold in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards energy efficiency and sustainability. The fact is that investing in solar, wind, geothermal and energy efficiency is far more cost-effective than nuclear plants. Further, I do not support more nuclear power plants when we do not know how we get rid of the toxic waste from the ones that already exist.

He wants to phase out nuclear power, ban fracking, and then...well, who knows where he wants to get all of the natural gas required for the economy, given that, say, solar does not work at night, and wind is intermittent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5aed7958dc_story.html?utm_term=.a8a69d63aed1

 

[Derec]

Tulsi Gabbard on nuclear power:

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/tulsi-gabbard-on-nuclear-power-plants/

Also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/climate-change-2020-democratic-candidates.html

7. Do you think nuclear energy should be part of the U.S.’s decarbonizing toolbox? Do you support the construction of new nuclear energy plants? Providing federal support to keep existing ones online? If not, why not?

Gabbard: No. No. No. Concerns over nuclear waste, and investments should go into renewable energy infrastructure and creating new jobs in a truly green energy economy.

That's just dumb. Nuclear has the best safety record per unit power produced.

[one would think engineering physicists at U Wisconsin would know that it should be "PWh", i.e. petawatthour, not "TkWh", terrakilowatthour. Weird.]

Nuclear is also very green.

Unlike renewables, which are plagued by low density and intermittency, nuclear is good for base load generation. When Germany started shutting down their nuclear plants, they had to start using more coal. Not very green!

This dogmatic opposition to nuclear power is setting us back decades.

Additionally, she would try to ban fracking, and new natural gas exploration, so it seems there would be no way to back up the solar and wind - which, unlike nuclear, need natural gas due to intermittence -, other than importing gas instead of extracting it.

Exactly.

Further, I do not support more nuclear power plants when we do not know how we get rid of the toxic waste from the ones that already exist.

We do know how to get rid of it: remove transuranics and put them in new fuel rods and bury the rest.

 

[Derec]

The subtle misogyny of the Pete Buttigieg swoon – Michael Greiner – Medium - "The young mayor of a small midwestern city is favored to win the Democratic nomination for President? Really?"

What nonsense! Not liking a candidate who happens to be a female does not mean it's 'misogyny'.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

Of these, Kamala Harris I think is the only one with a real shot. Warren is old and while certainly qualified, she does not have the je ne sais quoi American electorate is looking for. Gillibrand ran Al Franken out of the Senate and supported the false accuser Mattress Girl. Klobuchar? I don't know too much about her, other than her treatment of her staff and eating salad with a comb and that may be her chief problem.

I'd add Tulsi Gabbard.

You can add her all you want, she has no chance to actually win.

I like Elizabeth Warren the best. She has some serious proposals on what to do about our troubles.

I am not crazy about her student debt proposal. Why should people who were responsible about racking up a manageable debt level and were/are paying it off subsidize somebody who owes a lot of money because he/she just had to go to that small private liberal arts college for their art history degree.
If she halves all the numbers, we could talk.

 

[lpetrich]

Elizabeth Warren: Americans don't need cliché financial advice. They just need to be paid more - CNN

Chase Bank fired off a tweet last week staging a hypothetical conversation between one of its customers and her bank account. The customer asks why her account balance is low, and the bank tells her not to go out for food or coffee when she can make it at home instead, or to spend money on a cab when she can just walk. The customer pretends not to listen. "I guess we'll never know," she says, brushing off her low balance and the bank's "advice" on how to manage her money.

She responded: Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: ".@Chase: why aren’t customers saving money? Taxpayers: we lost our jobs/homes/savings but gave you a $25b bailout Workers: employers don’t pay living wages Economists: rising costs + stagnant wages = 0 savings Chase: guess we’ll never know Everyone: seriously? #MoneyMotivation… https://t.co/wyRlXaFev8"

Here's the thing — I grew up on the ragged edge of the middle class in a family with a tight budget and no room for error. My parents worked hard and did the best they could, but when I was 12 years old, my Daddy had a heart attack. Everyone thought he was going to die. He came back home, but he couldn't work. There was no net to catch my family. We lost our station wagon and would have lost our house if my mother hadn't saved our family by going out and getting her very first job outside the home — a minimum wage job answering phones at Sears.

It wasn't until later in life that I realized how lucky my family was. After I became a law professor, I started studying what drives families into bankruptcy. I poured through records in courthouse after courthouse, and found that most of the families who ended up in front of a bankruptcy judge were just like mine. They worked hard and did everything right, scraping by until an unexpected medical bill or a divorce pushed them over the edge.

In the years since I started immersing myself in this topic, things have only gotten worse for working families. For 50 years, the price of housing, education and child care has skyrocketed while wages for most workers have barely budged. The economy has grown and workers' productivity has increased, but their share of corporate profits has fallen. The gap between incomes and costs is so gaping that 40% of Americans can't come up with $400 in an emergency. Hard-working families have become adept at stretching their paychecks to the breaking point, skimping on necessities just to make ends meet.

Great. So great. Good that she actually did the research instead of outsourcing all her research and analysis to a political talk show -- she has a MUCH better work ethic than the one whom she hopes to replace.

 

[fromderinside]

Great. So great. Good that she actually did the research instead of outsourcing all her research and analysis to a political talk show -- she has a MUCH better work ethic than the one whom she hopes to replace.

Everyone has a much better whatever ethic than the one he/she hopes to replace.

 

[lpetrich]

Great. So great. Good that she actually did the research instead of outsourcing all her research and analysis to a political talk show -- she has a MUCH better work ethic than the one whom she hopes to replace.

Everyone has a much better whatever ethic than the one he/she hopes to replace.

Look at what a lazy bum pResident tRump is. Barack Obama worked much more than him, and I'm not claiming that EW outworks BO.