Democrats 2020

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Harris appeared to have potential, but I think she overplayed the race angle with Biden, mentioned appropriations too much, and the impeachment of Kavanaugh probably not a good thing.

That and Tulsi's takedown of her.

Now I'm wondering when the Democrats are going to get serious. If the economy turns before November 2020, it indicates a strong likelihood of a Democrat win. If it turns after, then Trump is already re-elected so it doesn't matter. When the economy turns decides who gets the win. So would you clowns try to figure out who would actually be a good president? The "will xir beat Trump" question is decided by circumstance. Having a senile version of Walter Mondale is a losing proposition whether he wins or loses.

 

[lpetrich]

Why Marianne Williamson’s Brand Of Spirituality Isn’t Working | FiveThirtyEight

Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, two of the three nontraditional contenders in the 2020 race, have managed to secure covered spots in the next Democratic debate, beating out sitting senators, a governor, the mayor of the U.S.’s largest city and a clutch of current and former members of Congress. But the Democratic primary’s other unorthodox candidate — motivational speaker and self-help author Marianne Williamson — may be sitting on the sidelines.

...
But the more voters learned more about her, the less they seemed to like her. According to an analysis by my colleague Nathaniel Rakich, Williamson’s name recognition is up, but her net favorability ratings are down. She now actually has negative net favorability, a dubious honor she shares only with mayor of New York Bill de Blasio and former Rep. Joe Sestak. And her failure to resonate with an audience that might have been receptive to her message — “spiritual but not religious” Americans — also reflects the difficulty of reaching a group that’s defined largely by what it’s not.

SbnR Americans tend to be more educated than average, and they tend to reject some of MW's stances, like her off-and-on rejection of vaccines and antidepressants. They aren't very sympathetic to her belief that wishing can deflect hurricanes.

In the end, despite the opportunities her unusual religious pedigree seemed to give her, Williamson seems to be running up against the same problem that other candidates on the left face when tackling the country’s changing religious dynamics. People who are less religious don’t have unifying values or principles that politicians can easily appeal to, and they don’t seem to be bothered by voting for someone who follows a different religious or spiritual path. What they want from politics might vary a lot — and at least this year, Williamson’s brand of spirituality doesn’t seem to be at the top of the list.

So the Left will need to work out some shared platform. AOC's "In a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live." looks like a good place to start.

 

[Derec]

Just heard Tim Ryan on the Smerconish say this (paraphrased):
Given the choice between voting for a socialist and a sociopath, people will quietly vote for the sociopath.

He is right. Too bad he dropped out of the debates while nonsense candidates like β or Hulian made it in.

 

[lpetrich]

Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "If we're going to make big, structural change, we're going to need someone leading from the inside—but we'll also need a grassroots movement pushing from the outside. The selfie line gives me a moment (or a few thousand moments) to meet that movement. https://t.co/yN2J4GjC5t" / Twitter

Colin Woodard on Twitter: "Thread: https://t.co/ztLGpzyvNi" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "my hot take on the democratic primary right now is that the divide isn’t actually a one dimensional “left/moderate”. instead, it has two dimensions. “return to normalcy” vs “big change” and “want to elect a woman” vs “can only win if we nominate a man”" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "biden is the candidate of “normalcy/man”, bernie the candidate of “change/man”, warren the candidate of “change/woman”, harris the candidate of “normalcy/woman”" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "this to me better reflects how democratic voters are actually thinking and talking about the primary and better explains the dynamics of the primary thus far" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "for example, it explains why the second choice of many biden voters is bernie and vice versa, and why the second choices of many warren voters is harris and vice versa" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "biden is attracting the most normie democrats, bernie is attracting the most left-wing democrats as well as the “weak democrat but also a normie” vote, warren is attracting the left-edge of the #resistance vote, harris the normie-edge of the #resistence vote" / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "i’m kind of just thinking out loud so let me say this is less of an axis and more of a venn diagram, and each of those categories is a circle. also room for the “young vs old” category as well." / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "anyway i’m just trying to make sense of certain dynamics, like the distribution of second choices, the broad favorability for all candidates, the demographics of each candidate’s coalition, etc." / Twitter

b-boy bouiebaisse on Twitter: "all i’m saying is do not read this as an explanation for every single voter’s choices or as a characterization of every candidate’s supporters." / Twitter

 

[Harry Bosch]

Just heard Tim Ryan on the Smerconish say this (paraphrased):
Given the choice between voting for a socialist and a sociopath, people will quietly vote for the sociopath.

He is right. Too bad he dropped out of the debates while nonsense candidates like β or Hulian made it in.

Yea, I do think that most people are good, and are willing to sacrifice to a point. But most people tend to vote their pocketbook. If Trump wins in 2020 it will be because the dems elected a person who scared the middle by threatening their finances.

 

[angelo]

Just heard Tim Ryan on the Smerconish say this (paraphrased):
Given the choice between voting for a socialist and a sociopath, people will quietly vote for the sociopath.

He is right. Too bad he dropped out of the debates while nonsense candidates like β or Hulian made it in.

Yea, I do think that most people are good, and are willing to sacrifice to a point. But most people tend to vote their pocketbook. If Trump wins in 2020 it will be because the dems elected a person who scared the middle by threatening their finances.

A socialist like Sanders would frighten the beejesus out of middle America.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just heard Tim Ryan on the Smerconish say this (paraphrased):
Given the choice between voting for a socialist and a sociopath, people will quietly vote for the sociopath.

He is right. Too bad he dropped out of the debates while nonsense candidates like β or Hulian made it in.

Yea, I do think that most people are good, and are willing to sacrifice to a point. But most people tend to vote their pocketbook. If Trump wins in 2020 it will be because the dems elected a person who scared the middle by threatening their finances.

A socialist like Sanders would frighten the beejesus out of middle America.

Actually it's primarily frightening to Donald Trump

Trump Privately Tells Confidants That ‘Socialism’ Won’t Be ‘So Easy’ to Beat in 2020

As he campaigns for re-election, Donald Trump and his team have made trashing the “socialists or communists” in the 2020 Democratic presidential field a cornerstone of their messaging. In private, however, the president often strikes a different, more nuanced tone—one driven by a concern that socialism (at least as defined by the Democrats) may actually sell politically.

This year, Trump has repeatedly told friends and donors that running against “socialism” in a general election may not be “so easy” because of its populist draw, according to four Republicans and sources close to Trump who’ve heard him say this over the past several months.

 

[lpetrich]

Show Your Work on Twitter: "@jbouie I'm not sure this frame works, because it requires arguing that women 18-29 believe the Dems “can only win if we nominate a man” https://t.co/svd6S8satT" / Twitter

• Joe Biden wins among people 55+, loses among younger ones, especially among 18-29 ones.
• Bernie Sanders wins big among people 18-29, wins a little bit among people 30-54, loses big among ones 55+.
• Elizabeth Warren does better among women than among men, and better among older people than among younger ones.
• Kamala Harris wins among 30-54 women, loses a little among 18-29 both sexes, and is a draw among all others.

Andrew Yang: No apologies for the Asian jokes - POLITICO

“I’m Asian, so I love tests,” he continued, adding that the DNC’s rules have been “incredibly helpful” to him because he knows how many donors — and what polling numbers — he needs to aim for.

...
But during his unlikely rise, Yang has taken heat for playing up Asian stereotypes — from all the physicians he’s personally familiar with (“Now, I am Asian, so I know a lot of doctors,” he said at the last debate), to his affinity for mathematics (“The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math,” he likes to say in closing his speeches).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That mild self-racism is the one thing about Yang I don't like. It is cringe among some great policy.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me get this straight. If one self deprecates one's policy is to be valued less?

So you're saying we should devalue your views because you include race as a factor for evaluating policy.

Thanks?

 

[angelo]

A socialist like Sanders would frighten the beejesus out of middle America.

Actually it's primarily frightening to Donald Trump

Trump Privately Tells Confidants That ‘Socialism’ Won’t Be ‘So Easy’ to Beat in 2020

As he campaigns for re-election, Donald Trump and his team have made trashing the “socialists or communists” in the 2020 Democratic presidential field a cornerstone of their messaging. In private, however, the president often strikes a different, more nuanced tone—one driven by a concern that socialism (at least as defined by the Democrats) may actually sell politically.

This year, Trump has repeatedly told friends and donors that running against “socialism” in a general election may not be “so easy” because of its populist draw, according to four Republicans and sources close to Trump who’ve heard him say this over the past several months.

Politicians who promise free shit for all always attract a large percentage of the gullible public. Especially when the mainstream media goes soft on asking the hard question of how they propose to pay for all that free shit!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Tax cuts! Free money! More tax cuts! More Free money! Never mind slashing Social Security, Medicare, and medicaid to pay for that free money. Those things are SOCIALISM, right? You don't want SOCIALISM, you want free money!

 

[Copernicus]

He's not from California.

Kamala doesn't have the charisma that Obama does, and I have not met a single black woman who likes her. My black friends all think she's phony. Maybe it take a black woman to find the faults in another black woman. . One of my black female friends now likes Warren, although like me, she's worried that Warren is too far left to beat Trump. I wish I felt really good about any of these candidates.....Of course, I will vote for the eventual nominee. It looks like it will be either Warren or Biden. Biden is holding the lead, but Warren keeps creeping up, while the others are falling back or remaining with very little support. But then, who the fuck knows if any of these polls are very meaningful. Anybody else 20/20

I think that it is still too early to rule out anyone on the basis of current polls, and I still like Harris a lot. She failed to capitalize on her earlier successful takedown of Biden, falling back into the trap of thinking that that was going to scale up into rising popularity. So I think that she flubbed her opportunity. Nevertheless, I think that she would do well in a debate against Trump or just about any Republican, and I think that she would make a decent President.

Right now, Warren is enjoying a bandwagon effect. However, bandwagons don't have a long shelf life, and we are still several months away from the real competition. I like Warren a lot better than you do, but it remains to be seen whether she can keep this momentum up without stumbling along the way, especially with Democratic rivals and the Republican propaganda machine going at her with all they have.

 

[fromderinside]

Politicians who promise free shit for all always attract a large percentage of the gullible public. Especially when the mainstream media goes soft on asking the hard question of how they propose to pay for all that free shit!

Tax cuts! Free money! More tax cuts! More Free money! Never mind slashing Social Security, Medicare, and medicaid to pay for that free money. Those things are SOCIALISM, right? You don't want SOCIALISM, you want free money!

All politicians have economic reasons for reducing taxes. In fact all tax cuts have effects on economies and budget. Give a 10% tax cut to the bottom half of tax payers and you are putting money in the hands of those who will use to live better.

Raising taxes on wealthy persons puts more money in the budget that can be used for programs for those who are not wealthy.

Cleaver statements like those the above two posted don't reflect any reality at all.
To wit: sure the public is attracted to the mention of lower taxes to those who feel economic pain in paying them but it doesn't necessarily lead to votes for the tax cutters because of idiots like those who claim that's all tax cuts generate.
three wit: Those who call tax cuts free money are misclaiming that reduced taxes are like an employer giving one money for doing nothing which couldn't be further from the truth.

If money is in circulation it generates more circulation meaning more taxed money.

The problem comes when one suggests tax cuts for the wealthy presuming they will put that money back into the economy. One major factor in wealth gaining and keeping management of money. If money comes one's way the wealthy will tend to conserve it rather than put it back in to the economy.

If one has substantially more than one needs to get by and their taxes are increased one tends to find ways to increased they tend to make up for that taxation with new income rather than cut back on what one has already demonstrated produces income. As long as tax increases leave the probability of making more money high one will attempt to do that.

Capitalism is a positive biased game for those who want to play it. They will continue playing and continue attempting new ways of gaining until they see negative return,, Think of the last recession. People kept investing in and flipping homes until they buyers went away. Then they began scamming to encourage more buyers until that failed. Then they hid what they could to protect as much as they could of what they had made. The only ones who lost were those who saw the game late at the end of the ponzi run.

 

[Derec]

Actually it's primarily frightening to Donald Trump

Trump Privately Tells Confidants That ‘Socialism’ Won’t Be ‘So Easy’ to Beat in 2020

Most likely Trump is just wrong. But it is also possible he is employing reverse psychology and really fears Biden or Harris.

 

[Elixir]

Actually it's primarily frightening to Donald Trump

Trump Privately Tells Confidants That ‘Socialism’ Won’t Be ‘So Easy’ to Beat in 2020

Most likely Trump is just wrong.

Yeah, history tells us that Nazis beat socialists every time.

 

[fromderinside]

Straight man here.

... and your magic potion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, history tells us that Nazis beat socialists every time.

Warren will beat Bernie?

 

[ZiprHead]

Yeah, history tells us that Nazis beat socialists every time.

Warren will beat Bernie?

Now who's calling everyone nazis.

 

[ZiprHead]

Warren overtakes Biden in Iowa for first time: poll

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa for the first time in a presidential primary poll released Saturday.

The Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa found that 22 percent support Warren for president while 20 percent said Biden was their top choice.

Go Lizzie! Yur my gurl.