US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2 · 19-02-2019 1:43pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I’m sure Tulsi Gabbard would as she endorsed him in 2016. She’s currently being smeared for her criticism of US foreign policy though so won’t get far in her own campaign.

If Bernie gets the nomination, it will be Tulsi or Warren as VP.

Tulsi has been the most vocal regarding the ****show that is Venezuela while so many of the others have been really meek, Harris especially has been really quiet over it. Unacceptable tbh. :mad:

pixelburp · 19-02-2019 2:11pm

Welp, that's the liberal vote fragmented right there. The Bernie Bros will return, and the Democrat Purity Tests will eat every tepid intellectual failing from Warren, Harris et al, leaving the conscientious objectors to vote for the 2020 JillSteinalike...

duffysfarm · 19-02-2019 3:06pm

I had to laugh when i read one of the articles which announced that Bernie was running. It said something along the lines that out of a field of maybe 20 candidates he will be the only straight white male running for the democrats. Just to be clear i am not giving out about some one who is not straight and white but i think that straight and white is underrepresented when it is 1 in 20

qwerty ui op · 19-02-2019 3:09pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Welp, that's the liberal vote fragmented right there. The Bernie Bros will return, and the Democrat Purity Tests will eat every tepid intellectual failing from Warren, Harris et al, leaving the conscientious objectors to vote for the 2020 JillSteinalike...

I heard Bill Maher on about this the other night. I think it's BS.

It's taken as a given that all the Dem candidates are fine on social issues and to be fair they're all fine so nothing to consider here.

There is no, "Purity test" other than the main stream trying wedge it into debate fox news style, I don't hear anyone else talking about it.

There is only one test! one thing asked of the candidates!
Will they fight for ordinary people or big money interests

Funny how all the confusion is coming from the main stream which happen to be a big money interest.

qwerty ui op · 19-02-2019 3:12pm

duffysfarm wrote: »

I had to laugh when i read one of the articles which announced that Bernie was running. It said something along the lines that out of a field of maybe 20 candidates he will be the only straight white male running for the democrats. Just to be clear i am not giving out about some one who is not straight and white but i think that straight and white is underrepresented when it is 1 in 20

Bidan

The 2 front runners are straight and white

Joe_ Public · 19-02-2019 3:23pm

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Bidan

The 2 front runners are straight and white

Beto? Sherrod Brown? That’s at least 4 anyway.

Rjd2 · 19-02-2019 5:28pm

identity politics will be used mostly to smear Bernie rather than Biden and the other white guys, because the establishment loath him.
The resistance@! PUTIN@! DEMOCRACY!!! internet mob are already going hard on him while embracing bores like Gillibrand. :rolleyes:

Tulsi who lets not forget is one of the few calling out this bull**** in Venezuela was a tune up for the Bernie bashing.

pixelburp · 19-02-2019 6:26pm

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I heard Bill Maher on about this the other night. I think it's BS.

It's taken as a given that all the Dem candidates are fine on social issues and to be fair they're all fine so nothing to consider here.

There is no, "Purity test" other than the main stream trying wedge it into debate fox news style, I don't hear anyone else talking about it.

There is only one test! one thing asked of the candidates!
Will they fight for ordinary people or big money interests

Funny how all the confusion is coming from the main stream which happen to be a big money interest.

I think it can be overestimated, but the purity tests are colouring democrat candidates, and IMO had an effect on the 2016 vote breakdown. Sanders v Clinton became a fight between the old and new, and even now I see and read arguments made for shunning centrist democrats in favour of more left leaning candidates. The ubiquitous AOC election was a good example of this.

The Sanders zealots didn't all move to vote Clinton once she won the candidate election, and while not every vote for Jill Stein was a lost democrat vote, there was still a narrative that couldn't countenance holding its nose and voting for the lesser of two establishment figures (you had celebrities like Susan Sarandon IIRC declaring as much).

It's only going to get worse while the 2 party system forces anyone vaguely left of centre to force themselves into a single party, the rifts will only deepen in my view.

As for Maher, meh, I can't stomach his points of view, too often coming off like a left wing Hannity.

Edit: though I would add that it's unlikely there'll be a candidate as divisive as Clinton to split the vote, so a lot of the above is based off a more extreme rival to Sanders.

GSRNBP · 19-02-2019 8:53pm

I think a Biden ticket with one of the younger candidates as VP would be an extremely strong ticket: I'd say it'd be Biden/Harris or Biden/O'Rourke with a view to a combo Harris/O'Rourke with whoever was VP as President in 2024.

Itssoeasy · 19-02-2019 9:28pm

The democrats with these fecking purity tests and wanting to be as pure as the driven snow won't work. To quote former Secretary of State James Baker, "do you want to be ideological pure or do your want to win? "

pixelburp · 19-02-2019 9:42pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The democrats with these fecking purity tests and wanting to be as pure as the driven snow won't work. To quote former Secretary of State James Baker, "do you want to be ideological pure or do your want to win? "

I think it speaks to the widening gap that two parties can no longer fill; you can debate who's to blame - I feel like Trump has enabled these more hardened leftwing politicians - but there's definitely an ideological split occuring in the Democrats.

I can sort of sympathise with those looking at the centrist establishment and feeling antagonistic towards those wedded to the "old way"; after all, no one party can realistically accommodate multiple ideologies. But now is not the time to have a schism, if they're serious about shunting Trump out.

batgoat · 19-02-2019 10:07pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think it speaks to the widening gap that two parties can no longer fill; you can debate who's to blame - I feel like Trump has enabled these more hardened leftwing politicians - but there's definitely an ideological split occuring in the Democrats.

I can sort of sympathise with those looking at the centrist establishment and feeling antagonistic towards those wedded to the "old way"; after all, no one party can realistically accommodate multiple ideologies. But now is not the time to have a schism, if they're serious about shunting Trump out.

My view is that a more socialist lean to the Democrats is in the process of happening. But I think it is more likely to occur via the likes of Cortez. So I would say it's fifteen years off and might actually be received well by then. My preference is Harris or Beto.

branie2 · 19-02-2019 10:52pm

I'd like to see a female president being elected next year

Kermit.de.frog · 19-02-2019 10:53pm

I'd like to see an intelligent president elected next year

branie2 · 19-02-2019 10:54pm

Well, a woman can be intelligent

Kermit.de.frog · 19-02-2019 11:16pm

From an Irish perspective Biden would be the best choice in my opinion.

rossie1977 · 19-02-2019 11:18pm

batgoat wrote: »

My view is that a more socialist lean to the Democrats is in the process of happening. But I think it is more likely to occur via the likes of Cortez. So I would say it's fifteen years off and might actually be received well by then. My preference is Harris or Beto.

Democrats are only recently moving back towards their progressive platform of the 1960s. Obviously many of top Democrats are still centre right or solid conservative..a shift that began in the early 90s so there might be some pushback from the Pelosi and Schumers while the likes of Manchin will probably switch alliegances to Republican over next 2 years.

But you see more and more candidates in this race, establishment Dems like Booker embracing what 5 years ago in the States would be considered radical progressive policies such as Medicare for all or making college affordable so it's already happening in a big way.

KyussB · 20-02-2019 2:54am

With AOC you are seeing the gradual entrance into the political mainstream of economic policies and theory, that are going to cause the biggest upheaval in economic practice in more than 40+ years - she's a supporter of Modern Monetary Theory, a much suppressed heterodox school of economics (part of the Post-Keynesian school), and is deploying it as the primary practical means of fighting climate change, with the Green New Deal.

It's probably still half a decade to a decade out from replacing the current economic mainstream - but when it does reach that critical mass, it's going to have major implications for economic practice, pretty much all over the world. If we're all really lucky, that might even take the form of a global effort at infrastructural/technological redevelopment, to arrest climate change.

One of the very few genuinely interesting changes to happen in the US for a long time. I tuned out from nearly all US politics long ago, in the runup to Trumps election, as the signal-to-noise ratio went into the toilet.

is_that_so · 20-02-2019 11:56am

KyussB wrote: »

With AOC you are seeing the gradual entrance into the political mainstream of economic policies and theory, that are going to cause the biggest upheaval in economic practice in more than 40+ years - she's a supporter of Modern Monetary Theory, a much suppressed heterodox school of economics (part of the Post-Keynesian school), and is deploying it as the primary practical means of fighting climate change, with the Green New Deal.

It's probably still half a decade to a decade out from replacing the current economic mainstream - but when it does reach that critical mass, it's going to have major implications for economic practice, pretty much all over the world. If we're all really lucky, that might even take the form of a global effort at infrastructural/technological redevelopment, to arrest climate change.

One of the very few genuinely interesting changes to happen in the US for a long time. I tuned out from nearly all US politics long ago, in the runup to Trumps election, as the signal-to-noise ratio went into the toilet.

MMT has its flaws and in some respects is a big boon for those who want to articulate such views. They like their counterparts on the right want to restrict the views of the world to their vision and who they can find to blame for it not happening.
I like AOC, her energy and sense of humour in particular but she will need to find somewhere nearer the centre over time.

qwerty ui op · 20-02-2019 3:26pm

breatheme wrote: »

Klobuchar is in officially now.

Not my cup of tea, but i'd credit her for coming out and saying what she's about, fairly clearly (clearer than I expected anyway). This is a good thing for the process as there is many candidates and many policy positions.

First - she is a moderate democrat

Not that she speaks for all the moderates but It'll be interesting to see how other more popular "moderates" differ from where she's at.

Her whole approach is about, pragmatism and bipartisan cooperation and bridging the divide. That all sounds nice and sounded even better 10 years ago but what has she got that Obama/Bidan didn't have, how will she now suceed where everyone else has failed. Where talking about Mitch Mcconnell and the GOP here. They'll laugh their ass off at any Dem who comes looking for any kinda change, their doners/bosses didn't spend millions buying elections only for Mitch to just give it away.

Meanwhile Sanders, Warren etc are saying we're gonna fight fight fight... as not an inch will be given unless you fight and win.

So for a start you have two very contrasting views here between Moderates and progressives.

It's often said how progressive/more left wing, lack realistic thinking and go for pie in the sky stuff that won't happen. Here I think the opposite is the case the progressives are realistic and the moderates are going for pie in the sky.

Also, there seems to be this view that a Moderate Dem will be more appealing to Independents, whereas in 2016 it was Bernie who was favoured with independents. I don't have strong views either way right now but I need fairly strong evidence in order to believe that a Moderate is more attractive to an Independent.

Larbre34 · 20-02-2019 4:27pm

For my money Biden - Harris is the winning combo.

JPB has unmatched experience and leadership markers to take the big chair. He has run with the ball on serious White House policy issues for Obama and he is both a safe pair of hands and a moderate with feet in both the working class and Beltway circles. Yes he is only a year younger than Bernie but he comes across far younger and more pragmatic and frankly less scary to the middle.

Harris is younger, but not too young, she has serious experience as California AG and the Senate, and has the advantage over the likes of Elizabeth Warren who has wound more people up over a longer time. She is also at pains today to point out that she is not a 'democratic socialist'

I think whatever the ticket order, Harris will be on it unless she trips up majorly in some way between now and then. Of those not yet declared I think only Michael Bloomberg or Eric Holder have to potential to upset the current runners.

That said, I'd almost love Trump to remain in power for he and Bloomberg to go toe to toe.

eagle eye · 20-02-2019 4:32pm

Are you saying winning the Dems nomination because Biden won't beat Trump.
You need someone younger, somebody who at least sounds sharp and intelligent.

rossie1977 · 20-02-2019 4:43pm

I think Harris' best bet is becoming majority leader in Senate in either 2020-22. She is very establishment Democrat, yes she doesn't have baggage but really not sure how good of an idea it is to run as a centist in this campaign when you know Trump will again go full on faux populist and AOC has become most talked about politican in the country within one month because of her progressive ideology

Harris has one thing going for her and it's that the media love her.. however that will be of little use against Trump as they are obsessed with him and Trump's their meal ticket not Harris

qwerty ui op · 20-02-2019 5:16pm

This stage of the process is a chance to pick the person you believe is best suited to lead the country taking into account international affairs.

Winning the GE is the next stage.
Picking someone the win the GE now, is daft. You turn away or don't even consider the person you believe to be best suited too run the country in the hope that someone will just beat Trump/Gop just so you can say we've won!
If you think you like this, I some bad news for you, you've already lost!

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes he is only a year younger than Bernie but he comes across far younger and more pragmatic and frankly less scary to the middle. .

How do you know this?

Larbre34 wrote: »

That said, I'd almost love Trump to remain in power for he and Bloomberg to go toe to toe.

I'd be hoping everyone goes for the person they believe is best to run the counrty and when it comes to entertainment they try netflix or whatever

Larbre34 · 20-02-2019 5:33pm

I don't 'know' it at all, its my perception and my informed opinion from friends and family in different parts of the U.S., Sanders is as far left as it gets in mainstream representative politics and that independent socialist tag sticks and is off putting to those who aren't young and very liberal.

Choosing their president for his politics would certainly be a step up from where they are now.

qwerty ui op · 20-02-2019 5:38pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you saying winning the Dems nomination because Biden won't beat Trump.
You need someone younger, somebody who at least sounds sharp and intelligent.

Maybe, but you can't guarantee that nor can anyone guarantee anything so it madness to pick based on some speculation, same applies to speculating x will do well in rust belt etc you just don't know.

You go for who you think it best to lead and have a little faith in your fellow citizens.

rossie1977 · 20-02-2019 5:48pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't 'know' it at all, its my perception and my informed opinion from friends and family in different parts of the U.S., Sanders is as far left as it gets in mainstream representative politics and that independent socialist tag sticks and is off putting to those who aren't young and very liberal.

Choosing their president for his politics would certainly be a step up from where they are now.

His policies have become more and more mainstream in the US since 2016 and he is most popular politician in the country if we are talking approval rating.

Sanders also has evidence to show he is steadfast in his commitment. There are videos of him from 30+ years ago saying the same stuff he says today. He has never sold out his ideologies and shoots straight. He was one of the few that was against the Iraq war (Trump can try to claim that but it's not true).

As you say attracting older people will be an issue, also attracting minorities as his base is mostly 18-49 white voters. As I stated previously probably only a handful of states up for grabs in 2020 anyway and Sanders can win Maine district, NH, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Not many other Dems right now in the race I would be confident saying they could win all of them.

Of course it might be a case that Sanders is viewed like Ron Paul second time he runs and new bright shiny toy gets all the press...have to wait and see.

ricero · 20-02-2019 9:03pm

Sanders is a weak and an old delusional liberal. I look forward to witnessing the Donald crush him in 2020.

KyussB · 21-02-2019 1:55am

is_that_so wrote: »

MMT has its flaws and in some respects is a big boon for those who want to articulate such views. They like their counterparts on the right want to restrict the views of the world to their vision and who they can find to blame for it not happening.
I like AOC, her energy and sense of humour in particular but she will need to find somewhere nearer the centre over time.

Yet nobody seems able to articulate its supposed flaws, without just straw-manning it - i.e. arguing against something it is not. MMT is just as capable of being deployed for right-wing causes, as it is for left-wing - it's effectively bipartisan.

AOC isn't there to go for status-quo-supporting i.e. centrist politics - she's there to shift the status quo, and completely upend the present economic order.

Rjd2 · 21-02-2019 2:21am

Tulsi was on the view today, attacked by war monger Mc Cain and similarly unlikable Navarro on having a moderate foreign policy.

I thought she handled it really well, it means nothing sadly, but her stance on Venezuela is easily the most consistent and most powerful compared to others who have been near silent.

I hope she can last a while at least in the campaign.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments