US Presidential Election 2020

is_that_so · 21-02-2019 2:29pm

KyussB wrote: »

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.

It has a very dodgy perception of deficit and debt and a poor grasp of the limited returns of taxing the super rich for starters. It also does not seem to deal with the concept of inflation planning in any meaningful way. As I said, she's impressive enough but she ain't got no plan. She has tons of good sounding rhetoric and people to blame too. She'll learn! I don't mind the economic order being upset but chaos is not a solution.

Rjd2 · 21-02-2019 2:35pm

very early days, but Warren's campaign has not really caught fire.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1098302816152621058

Early numbers from New Hampshire are poor a state where she really has to go close if she has to have any chance.

seamus · 21-02-2019 2:43pm

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...

This is exactly what I thought when Sanders entered the race.

It would almost have been better if he had lost in 2016. But what you have now is the candidate whose followers regard as the "chosen one", the man who was unfairly removed from the race by a biased committee and who would have won if he'd been allowed to run.

So their assuredness that Sanders is the one, will be total. They will believe that Sanders is the rightful president. And this will once again tear the Democrat vote in two.

If he could convince one of the younger front-runners to row in as his VP, then the DNC can have a winning combination. Or ideally, he would graciously step aside later in the race and endorse the front-runner at that time, asking his supporters to back them.

Going by PP odds, a Sanders/Harris or Biden/O'Rourke ticket would be very strong contenders, but you don't want them both to be on the table unless you want to split your voters.

qwerty ui op · 21-02-2019 4:15pm

Only one thing that draws people to Sanders and it ain't his hair or skin colour.

It's his policy positions

If others wanna spend their air time talking about social issues and Trump they should have at it... cos Bernie will be talking about the likes of citizen united.

Day 1, and the non substantive attacks on Bernie are coming hot and heavy from to so called liberal Media. I've heard Washington post have banged out 4 already. If the attack is non substantive it will only serve to rally his support!

There are 3 or 4 candidates in the field I'd take in a heartbeat, simply because of their policy positions and the likelyhood of them fighting for those positions.

The establishments knows if you take out Bernie the rest will be easily dealt with and maybe even moved back over to the right.

KyussB · 21-02-2019 4:47pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It has a very dodgy perception of deficit and debt and a poor grasp of the limited returns of taxing the super rich for starters. It also does not seem to deal with the concept of inflation planning in any meaningful way. As I said, she's impressive enough but she ain't got no plan. She has tons of good sounding rhetoric and people to blame too. She'll learn! I don't mind the economic order being upset but chaos is not a solution.

The fundamentals of MMT are underpinned at their very beginning, by correctly defining the relation between Money and Debt - something that all of mainstream economic theory inherently fails to do. It's got the most accurate description of debt, built-in right as the core underpinning part of its whole economic framework - it has the best and most accurate description of and perception of how to deal with debt, out of any economic framework.

MMT isn't against taxing the rich - neither is it aimed at taxing the rich. Once everybody is taxed enough to give a solid grounding to demand for the countries currency, it's neutral on taxing rich people beyond that point.

In fact, MMT would generally aim taxes at areas of the economy generating/experiencing excessive inflation, or which are otherwise overheating - so you are wrong to state that it doesn't have inflation planning - in fact, the Job Guarantee policy that MMT'ers advocate, is a gigantic inflation-management program, which takes the place of using mass-unemployment as a means of inflation management, like the way things are done now.

It's not just AOC supporting MMT either, Bernie Sanders directly advocates the MMT Job Guarantee, and had major MMT academics like Stephanie Kelton working with his presidential campaign the last time around.

It's not going away, and it's not going to be stuffed back in the bag this time - we're going to increasingly see it enter mainstream popularity and credibility - it's already light years ahead of where it was a few years ago.

Gbear · 21-02-2019 5:24pm

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Only one thing that draws people to Sanders and it ain't his hair or skin colour.

It's his policy positions

If others wanna spend their air time talking about social issues and Trump they should have at it... cos Bernie will be talking about the likes of citizen united.

The Democrats caned the Republicans in the mid-terms by focusing on policy issues and not really on identity.

If there was a lesson that needed learning there, it seems they have.

Granted, a primary is not a GE, so the rhetoric might be more geared towards identity for the time being, but I think whoever gets through will largely eschew the sort of hand-wringing politics that alt-right grifters in the media like to attack and focus on what will get people to turn up on the day.

Laois_Man · 21-02-2019 5:24pm

I can't wait for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run (which she can't until 2024 at least). The comedy would be unreal. An absolute air-head!

I think Biden will eventually throw his hat in the ring but he'll stay away from it for another few months, waiting for everyone to get fed up of all the other runners.

But I still think Harris will win the nomination - and lose the election!

rossie1977 · 21-02-2019 5:45pm

Laois_Man wrote: »

I can't wait for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run (which she can't until 2024 at least). The comedy would be unreal. An absolute air-head!

I think Biden will eventually throw his hat in the ring but he'll stay away from it for another few months, waiting for everyone to get fed up of all the other runners.

But I still think Harris will win the nomination - and lose the election!

She is highly educated, beat one of the top Democrats in her district with zero party backing or corporate donations and has become the most talked about politician in the country a month after taking her seat.

The air heads are those in media that think her policies are evil given that 40% of American's can't afford to pay debt of $500 without taking out a loan.

Laois_Man · 21-02-2019 6:03pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

She is highly educated, beat one of the top Democrats in her district with zero party backing or corporate donations and has become the most talked about politician in the country a month after taking her seat.

The air heads are those in media that think her policies are evil given that 40% of American's can't afford to pay debt of $500 without taking out a loan.

I'll take your image, and I'll raise you this one about her literally running Amazon and their massive investments out of New York...

AS for your list.....For someone so "highly educated", she seems to have awful difficulty with basic mathematics - coz she has yet to explain how to pay for any of it.

rossie1977 · 21-02-2019 7:42pm

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'll take your image, and I'll raise you this one about her literally running Amazon and their massive investments out of New York...

Amazon were holding the city of New York hostage wanting $3 billion in tax credit to setup. Amazon made $11 billion profit last year and didn't pay a single penny in tax instead received $126 million tax rebate.

Her political opponents can make fun of her but time will prove her right, in that huge corporations cannot bully their way into getting what they want. NYC will survive not getting Amazon. More than 4 million people are employed in private sector in the city and it's still the most sought after location in the world.

AS for your list.....For someone so "highly educated", she seems to have awful difficulty with basic mathematics - coz she has yet to explain how to pay for any of it.

It's funny nobody asked how Trump could pay for his huge tax cuts last year or his increase in military spending despite country being $22 trillion in debt..but when it's social programs that benefit society it's different.

AOC has already outlined she plans to get the top 1% to pay their fair share, massively reduce military spending (which costs over a trillion dollars annually when you include nuclear weapons spending)

KyussB · 21-02-2019 7:50pm

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'll take your image, and I'll raise you this one about her literally running Amazon and their massive investments out of New York...

AS for your list.....For someone so "highly educated", she seems to have awful difficulty with basic mathematics - coz she has yet to explain how to pay for any of it.

She's a direct proponent of economic views which emphasize that paying for the policies that she wants to implement, is a problem of how to efficiently allocate resources in the economy towards that goal, without creating excessive inflation - and not a problem of where to find the money to pay for that, money is just a tool for directing the allocation of resources, and the government there has no problem generating money.

As mentioned above, is allocating so many resources to the military really such a good idea? Deflating the military industrial complex's use of the economies resources, and redirecting those resources towards the Green New Deal, is precisely the kind of thing that is needed (and note, that I'm emphasizing talking in terms of resources, rather than money, there...this is a critical part of the way of thinking about the economy, that she promotes)

Laois_Man · 21-02-2019 8:26pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Amazon were holding the city of New York hostage wanting $3 billion in tax credit to setup. Amazon made $11 billion profit last year and didn't pay a single penny in tax instead received $126 million tax rebate.

With Amazon NOT setting up in NYC, they are not going to have the $3 Billion regardless (or any of the rest of it either)! Bizzare logic! Instead, they're going to Nashville where they'll get their tax credit regardless. Only one loser, and it's NYC

rossie1977 wrote: »

Her political opponents can make fun of her but time will prove her right, in that huge corporations cannot bully their way into getting what they want. NYC will survive not getting Amazon. More than 4 million people are employed in private sector in the city and it's still the most sought after location in the world.

I assume you have written to the Irish Government protesting at all the incentives offered by the IDA, tax write offs and 12.5% corporation tax offered to the likes of Amazon to set up here then? Shur we don't make a penny out of it, do we?

rossie1977 wrote: »

It's funny nobody asked how Trump could pay for his huge tax cuts last year or his increase in military spending despite country being $22 trillion in debt..but when it's social programs that benefit society it's different.

I think you'll find that sizeable portions of the media openly scoffed at Trumps tax cuts - just as they openly scoff at Trump everything else. Were those tax cuts good?? Because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to reverse then, and actually increase corporation tax too.

rossie1977 wrote: »

AOC has already outlined she plans to get the top 1% to pay their fair share, massively reduce military spending (which costs over a trillion dollars annually when you include nuclear weapons spending)

She wants to increase federal tax on them to 70%, making an effective tax rate of around 84%. And it has already been proven that America's 1%, even if they were paying 100% tax, wouldn't come close to paying for her exorbitant list - plus, if you did that, even the 70%, public finances would be worse off because they'd leave, or just not bother creating more economic activity. As for massively reducing military spending, there might never be any consequences to that, no?

KyussB wrote: »

She's a direct proponent of economic views which emphasize that paying for the policies that she wants to implement, is a problem of how to efficiently allocate resources in the economy towards that goal, without creating excessive inflation - and not a problem of where to find the money to pay for that, money is just a tool for directing the allocation of resources, and the government there has no problem generating money.

Yeah I know - she wants the Government to run everything and take it all out of the private sector :rolleyes:
Her Medicare for all idea alone would cost $35 Trillion. It's absurd!

As mentioned above, is allocating so many resources to the military really such a good idea? Deflating the military industrial complex's use of the economies resources, and redirecting those resources towards the Green New Deal, is precisely the kind of thing that is needed (and note, that I'm emphasizing talking in terms of resources, rather than money, there...this is a critical part of the way of thinking about the economy, that she promotes)[/QUOTE]

I think Vladimir Putin and many others will be delighted to see a significant lessening of resources in US military spending. It won't cause any problems at all. It's interesting though that you seem to understand and might be able to explain and fully cost how the "efficiently allocating of resources in the economy" will pay for everything....because she has been repeatedly asked to present costings and has been unable to.

Anyway, this is a thread about 2020, and we're talking about someone who isn't even eligible to run. Back on topic....

Harris Versus Trump (without Pence)....Trump to win again!

is_that_so · 21-02-2019 9:09pm

KyussB wrote: »

The fundamentals of MMT are underpinned at their very beginning, by correctly defining the relation between Money and Debt - something that all of mainstream economic theory inherently fails to do. It's got the most accurate description of debt, built-in right as the core underpinning part of its whole economic framework - it has the best and most accurate description of and perception of how to deal with debt, out of any economic framework.

MMT isn't against taxing the rich - neither is it aimed at taxing the rich. Once everybody is taxed enough to give a solid grounding to demand for the countries currency, it's neutral on taxing rich people beyond that point.

In fact, MMT would generally aim taxes at areas of the economy generating/experiencing excessive inflation, or which are otherwise overheating - so you are wrong to state that it doesn't have inflation planning - in fact, the Job Guarantee policy that MMT'ers advocate, is a gigantic inflation-management program, which takes the place of using mass-unemployment as a means of inflation management, like the way things are done now.

It's not just AOC supporting MMT either, Bernie Sanders directly advocates the MMT Job Guarantee, and had major MMT academics like Stephanie Kelton working with his presidential campaign the last time around.

It's not going away, and it's not going to be stuffed back in the bag this time - we're going to increasingly see it enter mainstream popularity and credibility - it's already light years ahead of where it was a few years ago.

I don't think Bernie is likely to have too much of an effect this time out as there is already far too much choice. In 2016 it was really only him or HRC. As for MMT why don't you map out a sample Budget 2020 with it? I'm guessing it has more than a hint of a "costed" SF budget submission!

KyussB · 22-02-2019 1:44am

Laois_Man wrote: »

Yeah I know - she wants the Government to run everything and take it all out of the private sector :rolleyes:
Her Medicare for all idea alone would cost $35 Trillion. It's absurd!

I think Vladimir Putin and many others will be delighted to see a significant lessening of resources in US military spending. It won't cause any problems at all. It's interesting though that you seem to understand and might be able to explain and fully cost how the "efficiently allocating of resources in the economy" will pay for everything....because she has been repeatedly asked to present costings and has been unable to.

Anyway, this is a thread about 2020, and we're talking about someone who isn't even eligible to run. Back on topic....

Nowhere does she ever say she wants the government to run everything, nor is that what is advocated by the economic framework she promotes - that's just what people who blanket-oppose all government involvement in the economy, straw-man it as.

Was that multi-trillion figure claim sourced from notorious anti-government-spending die-hards/think-tanks, with a long history of putting out dodgy propaganda and denying climate change etc.? (rhetorical question - the answer is yes...)

I think the whole world would be glad for significant cuts in US military spending and reduction in associated illegal foreign wars and coups - not just US citizens.

Economics is pretty much the study of how to allocate scarce resources in the economy, money is one of the tools used for deciding how to allocate those resources. The way to 'pay' for the Green New Deal, is to decide what activities and resources in the economy are not essential, when compared to averting climate change - and then reallocating those resources into the GND, while preventing resources from becoming too scarce (which would cause inflation).

It's not a money problem, it's a resource allocation problem - the US government has no problem obtaining the money it needs to allocate resources, and the taxation (plus legislative) power it needs to de-allocate resources from other areas of the economy that it deems less important than the task at hand.

AOC is not the only proponent of views like this - 2020 hopeful Sanders is, too.

qwerty ui op · 22-02-2019 4:34am

rossie1977 wrote: »

She is highly educated, beat one of the top Democrats in her district with zero party backing or corporate donations

It must also be remembered he (joe crowley) was No.4 Dem in the house and considered a rising star and expected to be next speaker, he climbed up the party by raising money, you raise money for the dems you rise through the ranks! ask Pelosi she knows.

So when he realized he was in a actual fight with AOC he even went to a GOP lobbing firm for cash and did a Blanket/ wall to wall /carpet bomb, on the airwaves but he just couldn't stop her.
So many stories about this deeply corrupt guy he's no different to Trump or one of his goons, in it for the money and power, except, he always says the right thing about gay marriage, minorities etc. Many Dems are just like him or worse.
In 2016 he was loudest Voice telling Bernie to bow out of the race against hillary and race wasn't even close to being over.
You'll never guess, but now he works as a lobbyist. He sold his people out on the inside and then used his washington experience to sell people out on the outside.

Jamiekelly · 23-02-2019 3:40am

http://fortune.com/2019/02/20/bernie-sanders-fundraising-money-raised/

Bernie raised 4 times more in his first day than Harris did. Harris did 1.5 million while Bernie did 6 million. Nearly 250,000 people donated and 10% of those donors opted in to donate monthly, roughly 500K - 600K dollars.

I think the whole non-PAC money move by Bernie is one of his biggest advantages in his 2020 run. It's hard to argue against small scale donations in presidential campaigns. The idea of being beholden to energy, food and insurance lobbyists for financial support, tends not to sit well with the "forgotten Americans" who think politicians don't represent their interests. If Bernie keeps reminding the swing states that he doesn't work for big business but only for his donators and taxpayers then I honestly don't think Harris and the rest even have a chance. He consistantly ranks as the most popular politician in America and has been for nearly 3 years now.

The only person who can honestly beat him in the primaries is Joe Biden. And in my opinion, between Biden and Sanders, the democrats will easily beat Trump no matter who wins.

I'm pretty sure the main question that will be asked of the two of them during the campaign will be "who is your VP nomination?" since they are both quite old and will need someone just as consistant as they are. Once the Democratic field thins out and most drop out, I have a feeling it will be Biden/Harris vs Sanders/Gabbard.

And that could split the party between the "grassroots" and the "corporatists" but I highly doubt that will lead to the chaos some on this thread have been suggesting. Clinton was like a political house fire. Hated by so many in her own party long before she was even thinking of running for president as far back as 2008. A proven liar with no charisma and shady connections.

The idea that 2020 will split the party like it did in 2016 is a fallacy because the main player in all that is not running this time and Trump was a shot in the dark back then but not anymore, we've seen the horrible decisions he's made and a dog whistling the US national anthem could probably poll better than him. Just look at the preference voting from post 265 regarding Bernie and Biden voters. Both sets of Bernie and Biden 1st preference voters would vote almost even handidly to give the other 2nd preference. Hardly an indication of a massive split in the party.

Rjd2 · 23-02-2019 4:30am

The VP for Bernie is fascinating to debate.

The establishment will come hard for him, they will use identity politics against him e.g old white man...accuse of not been tough enough on Russia, sit back and let the GOP smear him and obviously blame him for Trump winning in 2016.

If he somehow survives that, then Gabbard who has been hammered by the supposed liberal media would be a tempting choice. What a **** you to the establishment. Gabbard also is the strongest anti war candidate running and she does not do identity politics so she would peel of Trump voters who were attracted to Trump wrongly promising to end wars. Young, attractive and excellent media performer attributes which are important obviously.

However I think Bernie will be more pragmatic and pick Warren who has no baggage. I said it earlier, but damn Warren must be fuming she did not endorse Bernie and run hard with him in 2016, she could have been in pole position for 2020 instead of where she is which is an also ran.

Harris would be Biden's VP certainly. Some are speculating that he may pick Beto, but they won't have 2 white men on the ticket in 2020.

Fr Tod Umptious · 23-02-2019 10:59am

Rjd2 wrote: »

The VP for Bernie is fascinating to debate.

The establishment will come hard for him, they will use identity politics against him e.g old white man...accuse of not been tough enough on Russia, sit back and let the GOP smear him and obviously blame him for Trump winning in 2016.

If he somehow survives that, then Gabbard who has been hammered by the supposed liberal media would be a tempting choice. What a **** you to the establishment. Gabbard also is the strongest anti war candidate running and she does not do identity politics so she would peel of Trump voters who were attracted to Trump wrongly promising to end wars. Young, attractive and excellent media performer attributes which are important obviously.

However I think Bernie will be more pragmatic and pick Warren who has no baggage. I said it earlier, but damn Warren must be fuming she did not endorse Bernie and run hard with him in 2016, she could have been in pole position for 2020 instead of where she is which is an also ran.

Harris would be Biden's VP certainly. Some are speculating that he may pick Beto, but they won't have 2 white men on the ticket in 2020.

The two bits in bold.

Warren no baggage
Are you serious ?
Her campaign is struggling to get off the ground because of the old native American stories.
Even one of her biggest cheerleaders The Boston Globe has been critical.

Secondly what's wrong with two white men on the ticket?
If they are the best choice to get elected then why shouldn't they be picked ?
The majority of voters are white remember.

rossie1977 · 23-02-2019 12:57pm

qwerty ui op wrote: »

It must also be remembered he (joe crowley) was No.4 Dem in the house and considered a rising star and expected to be next speaker, he climbed up the party by raising money, you raise money for the dems you rise through the ranks! ask Pelosi she knows.

So when he realized he was in a actual fight with AOC he even went to a GOP lobbing firm for cash and did a Blanket/ wall to wall /carpet bomb, on the airwaves but he just couldn't stop her.
So many stories about this deeply corrupt guy he's no different to Trump or one of his goons, in it for the money and power, except, he always says the right thing about gay marriage, minorities etc. Many Dems are just like him or worse.
In 2016 he was loudest Voice telling Bernie to bow out of the race against hillary and race wasn't even close to being over.
You'll never guess, but now he works as a lobbyist. He sold his people out on the inside and then used his washington experience to sell people out on the outside.

It's hard for us here to understand how huge corporations, oil and weapons manufacturers, Koch brothers, the nra and other special interest groups in the States can basically buy candidates and votes and it's all done legally.

While the Dems do take corporate pac money they are more likely to vote with their gut feeling on certain issues https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/8xt55v/the_fcc_wants_to_charge_you_225_to_review_your/e25uz0g/

Even so there needs to be an elimination of corporate money from politics. The ordinary people of Maine are putting together money to try and oust Susan Collins in 2020. She calls the ordinary voter raising money ''bribery' despite the fact she has received over $23 million over the years.

Rjd2 · 23-02-2019 2:22pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

The two bits in bold.

Warren no baggage
Are you serious ?
Her campaign is struggling to get off the ground because of the old native American stories.
Even one of her biggest cheerleaders The Boston Globe has been critical.

Secondly what's wrong with two white men on the ticket?
If they are the best choice to get elected then why shouldn't they be picked ?
The majority of voters are white remember.

No baggage is a poor phrase! Bernie does not have many options tbf.

Warren is a safe enough choice, yep she has baggage, but the media very much leans left in America so she will get a pass for her native indian fibbing.

On the 2 white men issue, yep best people for the job, but the Dems are very much invested in diversity these days and tbf its not a bad strategy, Republican party and base is hugely white. Their is a demographic Apocalypse coming for the Republicans something which Trump has sped up hugely lets not forget.

Representation matters.

qwerty ui op · 23-02-2019 2:55pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

The two bits in bold.

Warren no baggage
Are you serious ?
Her campaign is struggling to get off the ground because of the old native

Warren is a great fighter and she's done some really great work one of the very best politicians out there but she'd break your heart.

Donald Trump for example could never break your heart, we knew what he was way back at the central park 5 case and if you were too young for that you had the Birther issue to tell you all you needed to know.

Those who support and might consider Warren are able to do something many who support Trump are not. Their able to look at each story for themselves and make their own minds up on how relevant it is. Putting it up in flashing lights or saying often, or shouting it out very load won't make any difference it is as it is.That story is hardly a good thing and it doesn't help but it ain't the reason she hasn't taken off.

breatheme · 23-02-2019 5:47pm

I really like Beto, but I'm not convinced he's the right pick.

Edit: for Bernie. I could see him being a good pick for Klobuchar or Gillibrand.

eagle eye · 23-02-2019 5:48pm

I don't see a left leaning politician getting elected as Potus.

Manic Moran · 23-02-2019 7:36pm

Interesting observations by CNN today.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/23/politics/trump-midwest-strength-poll-of-the-week/index.html

Still, this data should be at least somewhat worrisome for Democrats. If the Democratic nominee does, in fact, lose Iowa and Wisconsin, she or he will have to win in a state that hasn't voted to the left of the nation in the past few cycles in order to win the Electoral College. That may not be such an easy task.

Brian? · 24-02-2019 10:31am

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.

You don't think Biden is capable of sounding intelligent? I think he's well able to sound intelligent while maintaining his "common man" charisma. I think he'd quiet handily mop the floor with Trump in any debate.

The charm and humour he displayed against Ryan was brilliant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_diTHA_rhI8

eagle eye · 24-02-2019 10:53am

Brian? wrote:

You don't think Biden is capable of sounding intelligent? I think he's well able to sound intelligent while maintaining his "common man" charisma. I think he'd quiet handily mop the floor with Trump in any debate.
The charm and humour he displayed against Ryan was brilliant:

It's never worked before so why start now?
You will see lots of talk about his age, suggestions that he is not up to the job due to his age. You know how low they can stop.
The last four Democrats to get the job have all been relatively young. Obama 47, Clinton 46, Carter 52 and JFK 43.
If you want to beat Trump put up a young, smart candidate. I've mentioned a man that isn't even in the running for it already. The reason I picked him is his age, 47, his charisma and his excellent oration. The way he went at Sessions just made me certain he has what it takes. Martin Heinrich is his name. It looks certain he won't even get in the running for it but for me he is the outstanding candidate right now. Joe Kennedy is too young just yet but he is a certain future POTUS I think.
For me there is nobody close to these to guys as regards appeal to the general public in a presidential race.

Fr Tod Umptious · 24-02-2019 2:07pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

No baggage is a poor phrase! Bernie does not have many options tbf.

Warren is a safe enough choice, yep she has baggage, but the media very much leans left in America so she will get a pass for her native indian fibbing.

On the 2 white men issue, yep best people for the job, but the Dems are very much invested in diversity these days and tbf its not a bad strategy, Republican party and base is hugely white. Their is a demographic Apocalypse coming for the Republicans something which Trump has sped up hugely lets not forget.

Representation matters.

No it doesn't

It leans both left and right depending on where you are and what you are reading or watching or listening to.

This is the problem with modern media
We can pick and choose what source we use based on our own biases, technology feeds us news based on our own biases.

qwerty ui op · 24-02-2019 2:56pm

I think it cannot be understated how much distrust and hatred there is for the Washington establishment on both sides across the country. The anti-establishment of 2016 hasn't gone away, how would it? it's worse now than ever.
For every AOC that got through 4 or 5 failed by very slim margins in some cases. Those people got a campaign off the ground on small donations, they fought brave and honest campaigns only for the big money to go for even bigger money to come in and crush them. These were brutal defeats. The super rich want people to lose hope and not even try, that way they won't have to spend money on those pesky elections and ordinary people will know their role. The point being, when people see this happening on the ground, a clear enemy appears, one even bigger than than Left/ Right.

I'd argue that Ro Kanna who's on Bernie's campaign team is even more loved than AOC because he suffered brutal defeats and fought on and won. All this will have a lot of people all over the country fired up and ready to fight for one of the anti establishment progressives.
Ojeda from West Virginia, who closed the largest points gap in the Mid-terms but failed to get elected, is pro-life and voted rep his whole life! yet he is very popular among progressives because of his anti-establishment stance, he fought such a good campaign the corporatist Donald Trump had to stop golfing and go down there a few times to help the corporatist Carol Miller. She's just another perfect example that politics in US it the play thing of the rich.

With the hiring of far right conspirscy theory peddling, political operative Sarah Isgur, the distrust for establishment CNN grows.

rossie1977 · 26-02-2019 8:22pm

Media don't lean left in the US. They lean establishment and on the side of big corporations. US media don't even hide the fact https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/center-democrats-identity-politics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/opinion/democratic-socialism-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

It's funny that many in the media think it's impossible that a Democratic socialist could possibly get elected nationally in 2020 yet FDR nearly 90 years ago was a self indentified Democratic Socialist and won big each time.

Anyways back to today and Sanders has seen big boost since announcing he is running in 2020, up 6 points from last poll conducted

pixelburp · 27-02-2019 12:15pm

Apparently Biden is still mulling over a run; I really don't think he should. The box office of his sparring with Trump isn't IMO the tactic to take, not least with a candidate who isn't exactly squeaky clean himself.

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1100509268602773505

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments