Democrats 2020

[Elixir]

To beat Trump, dems will need an incredibly charismatic leader who can bring a wide diverse group together to win. A democratic candidate will need around 56 or 58% of the popular vote to win. That's going to be a tall order. Trump already has a 40% base that is 100% committed to his cause and will vote. Someone on the far left isn't going to get it done.

Several things to unpack here.

1. The winner of the last election was an uncharismatic, polarizing, slovenly real estate mogul who came from outside the political establishment and tapped into a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Never lose sight of that fact. The centrist, charismatic, qualified, accommodating Clinton (like the centrist, charismatic, qualified, accommodating Kerry) was unable to bring a wide enough group together to vote against a bloviating TV personality with no experience.

2. A lesson that everybody should take away from the above: nobody knows how the majority of people will vote, in either the primary or the general. Every prediction of what the people look for in a candidate, what makes them electable or viable, has about a coin-flip's chance of being accurate. Especially this early, and especially when so much could change in the country between now and the election (like, say, another economic downturn).

3. The "far left" in America, based on polls measuring public support for the policies they advocate (universal health care, more progressive taxation, comprehensive environmental reform, debt forgiveness, free public college, etc.) enjoys widespread support among likely Democratic voters. The majority of Americans are not happy with the fact that they live paycheck-to-paycheck while bankers and CEOs rake in record profits. The "far left" is the only contingent of Democrats that puts a spotlight on that and has ideas about how to fix it.

However, I think that in the end, you're probably right that Democratic voters will nominate someone who seems safe. For some reason, they all seem to think the Obama years were wonderful, and Biden reminds them of Obama. They don't care about his policies, they just want to correct the "aberration" that was Trump and get back to the previous levels of muted despair.

I repeat: Biden's supporters do not care about his policies. If Biden reversed his positions on Medicare for All, action on climate change, corporate fundraising, credit card debt, or Strom Thurmond, he would lose zero of his base. Democratic primary voters aren't looking for the candidate that will fight for their interests, they want the one who they believe represents the preferences of the dumbest person they know.

Yeh, all of those dynamics will be at work to greater or lesser degrees. But in the end, the fact that Trump is a bad fucking joke and a worse "president" makes him vulnerable to even a really bad Dem candidate, whether a Sleepy Joe, a gay Mayor or a screeching Liz Warren.
The fact that Buttigiege is being mocked for his name by a guy whose name literally means "fart", is evidence of that fact.

 

[PyramidHead]

To beat Trump, dems will need an incredibly charismatic leader who can bring a wide diverse group together to win. A democratic candidate will need around 56 or 58% of the popular vote to win. That's going to be a tall order. Trump already has a 40% base that is 100% committed to his cause and will vote. Someone on the far left isn't going to get it done.

Several things to unpack here.

1. The winner of the last election was an uncharismatic, polarizing, slovenly real estate mogul who came from outside the political establishment and tapped into a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Never lose sight of that fact. The centrist, charismatic, qualified, accommodating Clinton (like the centrist, charismatic, qualified, accommodating Kerry) was unable to bring a wide enough group together to vote against a bloviating TV personality with no experience.

2. A lesson that everybody should take away from the above: nobody knows how the majority of people will vote, in either the primary or the general. Every prediction of what the people look for in a candidate, what makes them electable or viable, has about a coin-flip's chance of being accurate. Especially this early, and especially when so much could change in the country between now and the election (like, say, another economic downturn).

3. The "far left" in America, based on polls measuring public support for the policies they advocate (universal health care, more progressive taxation, comprehensive environmental reform, debt forgiveness, free public college, etc.) enjoys widespread support among likely Democratic voters. The majority of Americans are not happy with the fact that they live paycheck-to-paycheck while bankers and CEOs rake in record profits. The "far left" is the only contingent of Democrats that puts a spotlight on that and has ideas about how to fix it.

However, I think that in the end, you're probably right that Democratic voters will nominate someone who seems safe. For some reason, they all seem to think the Obama years were wonderful, and Biden reminds them of Obama. They don't care about his policies, they just want to correct the "aberration" that was Trump and get back to the previous levels of muted despair.

I repeat: Biden's supporters do not care about his policies. If Biden reversed his positions on Medicare for All, action on climate change, corporate fundraising, credit card debt, or Strom Thurmond, he would lose zero of his base. Democratic primary voters aren't looking for the candidate that will fight for their interests, they want the one who they believe represents the preferences of the dumbest person they know.

Yeh, all of those dynamics will be at work to greater or lesser degrees. But in the end, the fact that Trump is a bad fucking joke and a worse "president" makes him vulnerable to even a really bad Dem candidate, whether a Sleepy Joe, a gay Mayor or a screeching Liz Warren.
The fact that Buttigiege is being mocked for his name by a guy whose name literally means "fart", is evidence of that fact.

Right, just like what happened in 2016, when Trump was easily beaten by Clinton in the end. You're epitomizing exactly the thing I'm talking about. Everybody either thinks that 2020 is in the bag because Trump is such a doofus, or that the only way to beat him is to run a perfectly symmetrical mannequin who takes the median position between throwing Guatemalan children into holding cells and not throwing them into cells.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeh, all of those dynamics will be at work to greater or lesser degrees. But in the end, the fact that Trump is a bad fucking joke and a worse "president" makes him vulnerable to even a really bad Dem candidate, whether a Sleepy Joe, a gay Mayor or a screeching Liz Warren.
The fact that Buttigiege is being mocked for his name by a guy whose name literally means "fart", is evidence of that fact.

Right, just like what happened in 2016, when Trump was easily beaten by Clinton in the end. You're epitomizing exactly the thing I'm talking about. Everybody either thinks that 2020 is in the bag because Trump is such a doofus, or that the only way to beat him is to run a perfectly symmetrical mannequin who takes the median position between throwing Guatemalan children into holding cells and not throwing them into cells.

I don't think "everybody" thinks 2020 is in the bag. 2016, indeed, says otherwise. 2020 should be in the bag, but a growing number of Americans want a stupid dictator in charge.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yeh, all of those dynamics will be at work to greater or lesser degrees. But in the end, the fact that Trump is a bad fucking joke and a worse "president" makes him vulnerable to even a really bad Dem candidate, whether a Sleepy Joe, a gay Mayor or a screeching Liz Warren.
The fact that Buttigiege is being mocked for his name by a guy whose name literally means "fart", is evidence of that fact.

Right, just like what happened in 2016, when Trump was easily beaten by Clinton in the end. You're epitomizing exactly the thing I'm talking about. Everybody either thinks that 2020 is in the bag because Trump is such a doofus, or that the only way to beat him is to run a perfectly symmetrical mannequin who takes the median position between throwing Guatemalan children into holding cells and not throwing them into cells.

I don't think "everybody" thinks 2020 is in the bag. 2016, indeed, says otherwise. 2020 should be in the bag, but a growing number of Americans want a stupid dictator in charge.

I don't think it's growing. People that identify as Republican are now down only 27%. Winning over independents will be crucial.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think "everybody" thinks 2020 is in the bag. 2016, indeed, says otherwise. 2020 should be in the bag, but a growing number of Americans want a stupid dictator in charge.

I don't think it's growing. People that identify as Republican are now down only 27%. Winning over independents will be crucial.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Sure, but don't make the mistake that "independent" necessarily means "halfway between whatever the Dems believe and whatever the Reps believe"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think "everybody" thinks 2020 is in the bag. 2016, indeed, says otherwise. 2020 should be in the bag, but a growing number of Americans want a stupid dictator in charge.

I don't think it's growing. People that identify as Republican are now down only 27%. Winning over independents will be crucial.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Sure, but don't make the mistake that "independent" necessarily means "halfway between whatever the Dems believe and whatever the Reps believe"

Winning Independents is important, but so is getting out the base to make up for the elevated far-right base that jacks off to Trumps tweets.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is actually no such thing as a defined political "center" or "moderate" in American politics. There are just people with so little interest in the issues that they hold wildly contradictory and incoherent views. The kinds of people who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Clinton, and now are seriously looking at Trump, cannot actually be reasoned with or appealed to by policy agendas. Their dealbreakers simultaneously include stuff like low taxes on corporations and universal health care. "My ideal candidate is someone who will ban fracking and abortion." The correct approach is not to pander to them, it's to drown them out by marshaling the base.

 

[JohnG]

There is actually no such thing as a defined political "center" or "moderate" in American politics. There are just people with so little interest in the issues that they hold wildly contradictory and incoherent views. The kinds of people who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Clinton, and now are seriously looking at Trump, cannot actually be reasoned with or appealed to by policy agendas. Their dealbreakers simultaneously include stuff like low taxes on corporations and universal health care. "My ideal candidate is someone who will ban fracking and abortion." The correct approach is not to pander to them, it's to drown them out by marshaling the base.

People are torn between Bernie and Biden, which supports your claim.

 

[lpetrich]

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock announces presidential campaign - CNNPolitics
However,
Dems plead with Steve Bullock to abandon White House bid for Senate - POLITICO "Like Beto O’Rourke, John Hickenlooper and Stacey Abrams, the Montana governor is rebuffing pressure to redraw the Senate map."

2020 Election: Elizabeth Warren turns down Fox News town hall - POLITICO

Elizabeth Warren turned down a Fox News invitation Tuesday for a televised town hall and denounced the cable network as a “hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists.”

The network has been inviting Democratic presidential candidates to participate in town halls moderated by its news reporters. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar already done the events, while Pete Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand are scheduled to. All of them have criticized the network’s coverage of the Trump administration but defended going on the network as a means to reach voters.

Nothing new on Bill de Blasio.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is looking more and more like the Democrats will eat each other up and Trump will sail to another 4 years.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is looking more and more like the Democrats will eat each other up and Trump will sail to another 4 years.

Sez the guy whose view of the United States is usually wrong.

 

[lpetrich]

Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "I love town halls. I’ve done more than 70 since January, and I’m glad to have a television audience be a part of them. Fox News has invited me to do a town hall, but I’m turning them down—here’s why..."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "Fox News is a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists—it’s designed to turn us against each other, risking life and death consequences, to provide cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money—big ad money."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "But Fox News is struggling as more and more advertisers pull out of their hate-filled space. A Democratic town hall gives the Fox News sales team a way to tell potential sponsors it's safe to buy ads on Fox—no harm to their brand or reputation (spoiler: It’s not)."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "Here’s one place we can fight back: I won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in order to see our candidates—especially when Fox will make even more money adding our valuable audience to their ratings numbers."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "I’m running a campaign to reach all Americans. I take questions from the press and voters everywhere I go. I’ve already held town halls in 17 states and Puerto Rico—including WV, OH, GA, UT, TN, TX, CO, MS & AL."
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "I’ve done 57 media avails and 131 interviews, taking over 1,100 questions from press just since January. Fox News is welcome to come to my events just like any other outlet. But a Fox News town hall adds money to the hate-for-profit machine. To which I say: hard pass."

 

[lpetrich]

Elizabeth Warren Deserves Your Undivided Attention | GQ

That ANY self-respecting Democrat would accept that invite is galling, but of course some of them already have. So here’s Warren again, distinguishing herself from many others in the 2020 field by formally adopting positions that the rest of her party should have adopted a long time ago.

In fact, the senator’s been on an absolute tear of late, throwing down one good idea after another and posting them to her Medium… a rare example of a prominent American using that platform to do something other than apologize for tweeting about molesting a parakeet. And these are not ideas that Warren has contaminated with the kind of wonk-ese that well-meaning Democrats often deploy, submarining their own rhetoric in the process. No no, she’s putting these policy positions in plain-spoken terms: the kind of forthright demeanor that some Republican would brag about having while standing on the bed of a Ford F150.

Then discussing her ideas on opioids, child care, student debt, health care, global warming, the Electoral College, and impeachment; "I haven’t even gotten into Warren’s other shrewd proposals: breaking up the big tech companies (please god), instituting that ultra-millionaire tax, extensive regulation and taxation of oversized conglomerates, and more."

As to likability, George Bush II campaigned on likability, that he would be more pleasant to have a beer with than Al Gore.

 

[angelo]

Now there's an Idea! Convince Al Gore to also throw his hat in the ring!

 

[PyramidHead]

Today, a perfect illustration of why I don't take Liz Warren seriously:

Warren reveals plan for U.S. military to combat climate change

The military-industrial complex is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. To stop the negative impact it has on the climate, we cannot frame the issue as one of preventing a threat to the military. The military IS the threat.

 

[Gun Nut]

Today, a perfect illustration of why I don't take Liz Warren seriously:

Warren reveals plan for U.S. military to combat climate change

The military-industrial complex is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. To stop the negative impact it has on the climate, we cannot frame the issue as one of preventing a threat to the military. The military IS the threat.

Did you link to the wrong article? because nothing of what you implied was stated there. this article was about combating the effects of extreme weather on our military facilities and our resiliency to damage. She proposes a fee on government contractors that fail to be sufficiently green, though... that part is true. Her goal is to get non-combat related activities carbon emissions down to "green deal" levels by 2030.

 

[PyramidHead]

Today, a perfect illustration of why I don't take Liz Warren seriously:

Warren reveals plan for U.S. military to combat climate change

The military-industrial complex is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. To stop the negative impact it has on the climate, we cannot frame the issue as one of preventing a threat to the military. The military IS the threat.

Did you link to the wrong article? because nothing of what you implied was stated there. this article was about combating the effects of extreme weather on our military facilities and our resiliency to damage. She proposes a fee on government contractors that fail to be sufficiently green, though... that part is true. Her goal is to get non-combat related activities carbon emissions down to "green deal" levels by 2030.

It's a perfect example of having a focus on policies that reform the symptoms while being utterly clueless about causes. It would be like pushing the following policy: to prevent arsonists from accidentally burning themselves when they torch people's houses, we will implement a program that requires all arsonists to reduce the temperature of their non-property-destroying activities to normal levels by 2190

 

[Harry Bosch]

Elizabeth Warren Deserves Your Undivided Attention | GQ

That ANY self-respecting Democrat would accept that invite is galling, but of course some of them already have. So here’s Warren again, distinguishing herself from many others in the 2020 field by formally adopting positions that the rest of her party should have adopted a long time ago.

In fact, the senator’s been on an absolute tear of late, throwing down one good idea after another and posting them to her Medium… a rare example of a prominent American using that platform to do something other than apologize for tweeting about molesting a parakeet. And these are not ideas that Warren has contaminated with the kind of wonk-ese that well-meaning Democrats often deploy, submarining their own rhetoric in the process. No no, she’s putting these policy positions in plain-spoken terms: the kind of forthright demeanor that some Republican would brag about having while standing on the bed of a Ford F150.

Then discussing her ideas on opioids, child care, student debt, health care, global warming, the Electoral College, and impeachment; "I haven’t even gotten into Warren’s other shrewd proposals: breaking up the big tech companies (please god), instituting that ultra-millionaire tax, extensive regulation and taxation of oversized conglomerates, and more."

As to likability, George Bush II campaigned on likability, that he would be more pleasant to have a beer with than Al Gore.

I think that she has zero likeability. She is so negative. All she wants to do is tear things down. She never talks about building things up. She has no optimism. I'd vote for her over Trump any day. But I'd slit my wrist having to listen to her complaining every day.

 

[Elixir]

I'd slit my wrist having to listen to her complaining every day.

Yeah, her voice is almost as annoying as Hillary's. But not even close to the annoyance of a fat orange crazy person standing on his lawn screaming every day.
And I don't think she'd be as annoying as a President as she is as a candidate. Her positions on issue are, IMHO, just what we need in most cases, and unlike the majority of talking head pundits, I am not really concerned about the "electability" thing. Trump hasn't helped himself in the last few years, and no matter what, he won't be running against the trainload of baggage that was Hillary Clinton. He will only win - regardless of his opponent - if his foreign benefactors are able to be significantly more influential in 2020 than they were in 2016.
While that's not out of the question, I think it fully depends upon the extent of the structural changes to (destruction of) the electoral process that Trump is able to effect between now and 11/2020.
At the end of the day, I see the 2020 contest being won or lost by the actions or inaction of Congress between now and then. The actual electorate has already expressed themselves in the 2018 elections.

 

[lpetrich]

Bill de Blasio officially launches 2020 presidential campaign noting Working People First | Bill de Blasio 2020 - YouTube - it's now 23 declared Democratic candidates, with a 24th one having dropped out (Richard Ojeda).

Silver Bulletpoints: Why Did All The White Guys Stampede Into The Race So Late? | FiveThirtyEight

"Bulletpoint No. 1: Why did all the white guys wait so long to run?" - looking at the Democratic candidates, the first one to run, John Delaney, is heterosexual, white, and male. The next such candidate to enter the race is Bernie Sanders, and all the candidates that followed him were also heterosexual, white, and male.

I’ll leave the longer explanation of this to others, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s a certain type of privilege in all these white guys thinking they can just drop into the race at the last minute after everyone else has been working their butts off for months.

Joe Crowley syndrome?

"Bulletpoint No. 2: Live on social media, die on social media" - like Beto O'Rourke, who has plenty of competition for his heavy focus on social media.

"Bulletpoint No. 3: Is Steve Bullock costing Democrats a Senate seat? Probably not." - some other red-state Democratic Senators are joining him in running for President.