Democrats 2020

[Jolly_Penguin]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump. Its hard to imagine her beating him unless he's impeached.

 

[PyramidHead]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump. Its hard to imagine her beating him unless he's impeached.

I don't let stuff like that get the better of my preferences, since who wins and who loses is determined by votes; and it's better to spread support for a candidate and thereby get others to vote for her than reject her for not being "electable" a priori. So what bothers me about the Native American thing with Warren isn't so much that others will use it against her, but that it reveals her as cynical and racially ignorant. And it hasn't escaped my notice that, while her policies are considerably to the left of Clinton's, her talking points about Bernie's ideas are straight from Clinton's playbook, which is why her demographic is largely the same as Clinton's was.

 

[Elixir]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump.

If that wasn't a concern I'd be for Buttigiege. I don't think Liz would lose to Trump, at least not this week. The Republifogmachine does have a headstart working on her, but I think she would be able to manipulate the media optics better than Trump. Which is saying something since that is one of the few things Trump does well.

 

[PyramidHead]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump.

If that wasn't a concern I'd be for Buttigiege. I don't think Liz would lose to Trump, at least not this week. The Republifogmachine does have a headstart working on her, but I think she would be able to manipulate the media optics better than Trump. Which is saying something since that is one of the few things Trump does well.

What's your favorite policy proposal of Pete's and why?

 

[Elixir]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump.

If that wasn't a concern I'd be for Buttigiege. I don't think Liz would lose to Trump, at least not this week. The Republifogmachine does have a headstart working on her, but I think she would be able to manipulate the media optics better than Trump. Which is saying something since that is one of the few things Trump does well.

What's your favorite policy proposal of Pete's and why?

I know absolutely nothing about his "policy proposals". I'd go with him because he is manifestly brilliant, kind, genuine and service-minded. He'd be a near-perfect candidate if it were not for his gay baggagiege. It's a shame - literally.
Anyone can mouth "policy proposals" at this stage of the game. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the less said about policy proposals at this point, the better for the candidate. Case in point, Warren's downfall should it occur, will likely be policy-related; she has married herself too soon to a "mandatory medicare for all" platform.

 

[PyramidHead]

I love this Current Affairs piece about the differences between Sanders and Warren, even though it veers into pundit brain territory a bit near the end.

One of the most important things Bernie Sanders has ever said is this: “I’m going to run the Presidency differently than anyone else. I’m not only going to be Commander in Chief. I am going to be Organizer in Chief.” What does that mean? It means that Sanders is not going to stop speaking on picket lines when he becomes president. (Trump did not stop holding rallies. This was smart.) This was a critical mistake that Barack Obama made: He stopped organizing when he got into office. If you do not organize, if you are not constantly out in the country helping get candidates get elected at every level, you will hold the White House and nothing else. I have previously discussed the way Warren focuses on “plans” while Sanders focuses on “power.” Everyone knows that Elizabeth Warren has a “plan for that.” But if those plans are going to go anywhere, you need what Sanders is talking about: a “political revolution.” You need to overthrow the existing Democratic party leadership in the DNC and in Congress. You need to threaten to run primary candidates against anyone who doesn’t support your agenda. You need a giant on-the-ground operation of people who will lobby for your agenda and convince Americans that anyone who opposes it needs to be ejected from office.

What I see in Elizabeth Warren is a law professor: someone who focuses on devising good plans, and then tries to get elected to carry out those plans. What I see in Bernie Sanders is a movement-builder: someone who understands that unless the president has millions of people behind them, ready to take to the streets, they won’t be able to cajole Congress into passing anything. And I think one of the fundamental problems with Barack Obama was that he was a law professor: He came up with a plan, and if he didn’t have the votes in Congress to pass it, that was that: The plan was dead. The law professor accepts political reality as “fixed,” while the movement-builder tries to get millions of people to act politically in order to alter that reality.”

 

[PyramidHead]

What's your favorite policy proposal of Pete's and why?

I know absolutely nothing about his "policy proposals". I'd go with him because he is manifestly brilliant, kind, genuine and service-minded. He'd be a near-perfect candidate if it were not for his gay baggagiege. It's a shame - literally.
Anyone can mouth "policy proposals" at this stage of the game. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the less said about policy proposals at this point, the better for the candidate. Case in point, Warren's downfall should it occur, will likely be policy-related; she has married herself too soon to a "mandatory medicare for all" platform.

Just wanted to get you to say it out loud. I'm gonna go inhale some exhaust from the nearest car to make my climate change-related death quicker and less painful, thanks

 

[Elixir]

I'm gonna go inhale some exhaust from the nearest car to make my climate change-related death quicker and less painful, thanks

All I can say, is that your absence from the gene pool will go unnoticed if you are really willing to lap up whatever pablum is being served up by one of the Top Five right now.
I do believe that Pete would be more likely to actually get something done on climate change than any of the others, but he's smart enough not to say so at this point. Can you say "Inslee"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My biggest concern with Warren is that she is going to lose to Trump. Its hard to imagine her beating him unless he's impeached.

She cannot handle being directly confronted, especially if forcefully confronted. She's being protected through the primaries because she is the backup in case Biden can't last, but Trump won't hold back the way her primary opponents do.

Tulsi qualified for the 4th debate, so the Democrats have split it into 2 debates. What are the odds that she's not in the same debate with Warren?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wall Street bankers threaten to back Trump if Democrats nominate Warren for 2020 election

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.

 

[Elixir]

2 debates. What are the odds ... ?

Seriously?

 

[blastula]

Jason is convinced there is a conspiracy against Gabbard, while also believing only radicals would want to impeach Trump.

 

[Politesse]

I feel like "she's a little bit racist" is a far cry from "she's more racist than Trump".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason is convinced there is a conspiracy against Gabbard, while also believing only radicals would want to impeach Trump.

It's not like the Democratic Party has any sort of history with rigging the primaries. That never happens, right?

 

[blastula]

No they don't, but if they were rigging it now, Gabbard wouldn't register as a concern.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No they don't, but if they were rigging it now, Gabbard wouldn't register as a concern.

It's not like the 2016 primary campaign exists.

 

[blastula]

Face it, you have no real evidence of any rigging against Gabbard. Meanwhile, Trump admits on camera to obstructing justice and then admits to soliciting another country to help his election, and you yawn.

 

[angelo]

And tax the rich out of existence! Without the rich, there will be no jobs, no new investment and America would be well on the way to a gigantic Venezuela or a Cuba, who by the way, Sanders deeply admired it's leader Fidel Castro!

Ever the fount of bullshit, aren't you.

Oh look what I found!

If you think Cuba is moving closer to democracy, I've got a swamp outside Havana to sell you. In the mind of Fidel Castro, it's just the opposite.

The former Cuban leader thinks the U.S. is moving closer to his regime.

Not only is he about to entertain a softened-up, legacy-seeking American president, he's having a bromance with a candidate he hopes will replace Barack Obama in January: Bernie Sanders.

Frail as he is at age 89, Fidel gave an impressive four-hour speech in October to a crowd of thousands in the Cuban capital, and the chief subject of his address was The Bern.

“Comrades, I speak before you today because I feel energized by this new America that is being born in front of our eyes ... Socialism is coming to America, and its name is Bernie Sanders, the new face of Socialism” he said to an exalted crowd.

“We have seen how Obama has brought universal health care to America, and now we have this presidential candidate, this Bernie Sanders, who in some way reminds me of my late friend Hugo Chavez in his will to bring Socialism to the American people.” By all accounts, he was speaking with passion.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'd go with him because he is manifestly brilliant, kind, genuine and service-minded. He'd be a near-perfect candidate if it were not for his gay baggagiege. It's a shame - literally.
Anyone can mouth "policy proposals" at this stage of the game. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the less said about policy proposals at this point, the better for the candidate. Case in point, Warren's downfall should it occur, will likely be policy-related; she has married herself too soon to a "mandatory medicare for all" platform.

Agreed, except the gay comment. If Pete’s folks in South Bend can look past this, I’m sure Independents across the US can.
As I’ve stated previously, Warren and Sanders are both full of shit if they think they are going to get Medicare for All through even the most optimistic of left leaning Congresses. Pete’s plan of providing a Medicare for Those Who Want It option will get through Congress and prove to be wildly popular, so much so that it will take on a life of its own and turn into a near Medicare for All.

Regardless of who the nominee is, all the Dems have to do is break out the secret weapon and once she walks out on stage with the candidate, the contributions and votes will shower down.

 

[Rhea]

No they don't, but if they were rigging it now, Gabbard wouldn't register as a concern.

It's not like the 2016 primary campaign exists.

You know, at the time in 2016, I listened to the claims that things were “rigged,” and I followed the specific claims to the facts, and they just did not hold up. I kept trying to see what on earth they saw in data and it was not there. It was often clearly opposite. I started out as a Bernie supporter, sent money to his campaign. Over the course of the campaign I changed my mind, mostly due to Clinton’s impressive 11-hour testimony demonstrating her command of facts and leadership. But I did not condone any “rigging,” and therefore kept my eye out for it and actually cared about the charges of it.

And it was just never supported by facts.
The idea that Bernie, who got many of his delegates from the most restrictive possible voting rules (caucuses) was somehow cheated by restrictive voting rules is barren.

And yet people continue to believe that there was some “rigging” that kept the guy with fewer votes out of the nomination. And they have allowed themselves to wear a cloak of distrust about the system that damages their capacity to influence it to this day. They are still ready to sit out elections over a myth.