US Presidential Election 2020

peddlelies · 17-10-2019 1:57pm

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? The democrats are largely a Conservative party, with some fringe elements.

Are they? Wikipedia's definition seems to be fairly far away. I'd argue the definition below is what the Republican party represent, and far from the beliefs that the current Democrat party shows.

Conservatism in the United States is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business and anti-labor union, anti-communism, individualism,advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.

American conservatives consider individual liberty—within the bounds of American values—as the fundamental trait of democracy; this perspective contrasts with that of modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice and emphasize the need for state intervention to achieve these goals. American conservatives believe in limiting government in size and scope, and in a balance between national government and states' rights.

Brian? · 17-10-2019 3:13pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Are they? Wikipedia's definition seems to be fairly far away. I'd argue the definition below is what the Republican party represent, and far from the beliefs that the current Democrat party shows.

Conservatism in the United States is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business and anti-labor union, anti-communism, individualism,advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.

American conservatives consider individual liberty—within the bounds of American values—as the fundamental trait of democracy; this perspective contrasts with that of modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice and emphasize the need for state intervention to achieve these goals. American conservatives believe in limiting government in size and scope, and in a balance between national government and states' rights.

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

peddlelies · 17-10-2019 4:39pm

Brian? wrote: »

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

Overheal · 17-10-2019 5:01pm

Democrats lost in 2016 for reasons which included never-Clinton voters, including Bernistas that felt (given the preponderance of evidence) that the DNC has fixed it's own primaries to help Clinton win.

At the moment they have characters in the primary all hitting each other, like Tulsi Gabbard who doesn't like where she's polling and has taken to declaring a rigged process and taking stabs at other candidates - sometimes with no self awareness. All very par for the course at this stage in the cycle, of course: many of the Republicans who wrote off Trump as a dangerous lunatic now actively lick his boots or have at one time or another since the election. But, Trump managed to rally enough Republican voters to win, if not a plurality of voters. Clinton did not manage this, she did not manage to attract Democrats to her side to get out the vote in what were considered safe districts that she lost. At the DNC convention the atmosphere was actually fairly toxic, and speeches given by the likes of Sarah Silverman left Bernistas in particular quite miffed: the message was 'too bad, so sad, get in rank, "baba-booie".' Wasn't received well, and it really doesn't help that Clinton is not inherently likable, and does things that are really quite conceited. Her 9/11 fainting episode really didn't help things either. Nor did Russian interference.

Compare to 2008 when Obama was at the DNC, and he announced Biden as his running mate. Clinton supporters weren't happy, but in turn got behind her being Secretary of State (because, she is a seasoned hand at diplomacy and foreign policy, this really was the best 2nd spot for Clinton). McCain listened to the RNC and picked Palin has his VP, and while that made for good in-the-minute politics (because Republicans were 'shattering the glass ceiling' more than the Dems were) it failed to gain traction when it became clear that Palin had no knack for national and especially international politics.

Unless Democrats nominate a strong party-unity ticket I don't think this will end well for them. The other thing I don't see happening is one of them picking a conservative running mate for a true unity ticket - something I think would blast Trump out of the race, personally, he would lose a huge swath of the conservative base overnight, what would be left behind are the all-in MAGA's, never-Dems, and the alt-right.

eire4 · 17-10-2019 5:24pm

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? The democrats are largely a Conservative party, with some fringe elements.

I would kind of agree. They are very much a center right party when it comes to economics. They have become more center left socially in recent years but overall I would see them as a center right party when you tag on their foreign policy which is full on imperialism and bullying governments away from anything to the left that might disturb the big US multinationals or military and installing far right puppet governments to help them control and or exploit the country as well as their support of the for profit health care system in the US.

eire4 · 17-10-2019 5:29pm

Brian? wrote: »

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

I would very much agree with you about why AOC is in the Democratic Party. The Democrats are very much up to their eyes in corruption and colluding with the Republicans to make sure they maintain their duopoly on power in DC and that no other voices can ever become relevant or allowed to get real power that might actually benefit the best interests of most Americans.

Brian? · 17-10-2019 6:17pm

peddlelies wrote: »

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

Most of the democrats running aren’t indicative of the party as a whole. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would be a much better guide.

Manic Moran · 19-10-2019 1:47pm

Clinton's back in the news, claiming Russians are working to support... Gabbard.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Rjd2 · 19-10-2019 1:54pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Clinton's back in the news, claiming Russians are working to support... Gabbard.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1185313613889888258

Gabbard v. Clinton once again shines a light on the 2 Democratic Parties: The one that treats Trump as the logical conclusion to decades of failed policy and the other that treats him as an aberration—the fault of uninformed voters who just didn’t know what was good for them.

Agree with the above. Tulsi is not perfect and probably should even be running, but the abuse she has to endure the last few years since exposing how biased the DNC was for Clinton is sickening.

She is just back from military service ffs.

Pleased to see Yang and Williamson come and bat for her.All eyes on Bernie. The same people who scream PUTIN@!!! at Tulsi for the most part loath him also so he really should speak out. Thankfully Nina Turner one of his top people has came out to support Tulsi today.

Overheal · 19-10-2019 2:27pm

Clinton is back in the news - again - the inquiry into “the emails” is complete!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-probe-of-clinton-emails-finds-no-deliberate-mishandling-of-classified-information/2019/10/18/83339446-f1dc-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

No deliberate mishandling of classified investigation. Dozens of individuals also mentioned as “culpable” of emailing classified information, however the reporting seems to indicate most all those individuals “were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them” take from that what you will. Government officials to this day still end up using private email for business. Gulags for the lot of them?

Overheal · 19-10-2019 2:29pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Agree with the above. Tulsi is not perfect and probably should even be running, but the abuse she has to endure the last few years since exposing how biased the DNC was for Clinton is sickening.

She is just back from military service ffs.

Pleased to see Yang and Williamson come and bat for her.All eyes on Bernie. The same people who scream PUTIN@!!! at Tulsi for the most part loath him also so he really should speak out. Thankfully Nina Turner one of his top people has came out to support Tulsi today.

She’s fairly right leaning for the party or at least that the image she conveys; she’s trying to pull moderate conservatives to support her seemingly. Was just on tucker Carlson again last night clapping back at what Hillary said.

Danzy · 19-10-2019 4:00pm

peddlelies wrote: »

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

It's fairly far out from Left wing politics as well.

friendlyfun · 19-10-2019 4:03pm

Is paying healthcare to illegal immigrants (though they're already playing billions in tax) a problem?

Danzy · 19-10-2019 4:06pm

friendlyfun wrote: »

Is paying healthcare to illegal immigrants (though they're already playing billions in tax) a problem?

If you want to kill it as a concept, no.

Manic Moran · 20-10-2019 5:32am

The argument isn’t whether or not it’s a good thing, the argument is whether or not we shouldn’t sort out the problems we have internally to the US first. It won’t take too long to walk around any city in the US and encounter someone who is a US citizen who needs healthcare.

Danzy · 20-10-2019 12:28pm

Looking like they'll be at least 10 candidates in the late November debate.

10 weeks out from the Iowa primary on Feb 3rd.

That is desperate politics.

Another 3 hours of one liners and surface scratching, focus spread out on multiple candidates, donations across multiples.

Against a President with massive recognition and fund raising ability.

The Dems need to realize they have no God given right to win this.

I hope they don't but they could at least get their head out of the proverbial.

eagle eye · 20-10-2019 12:30pm

I'm still holding a bit of hope that Beto gathers support and gets the nomination. He is the only candidate that I am confident will beat Trump.

Danzy · 20-10-2019 12:34pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm still holding a bit of hope that Beto gathers support and gets the nomination. He is the only candidate that I am confident will beat Trump.

Beto won't even feature in Texas.

eagle eye · 20-10-2019 12:54pm

Danzy wrote:

Beto won't even feature in Texas.

I know that's a possibility but the Dems are losing the presidential election with any of the other candidates imo.

Danzy · 20-10-2019 1:05pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I know that's a possibility but the Dems are losing the presidential election with any of the other candidates imo.

The potential candidates is a poor enough pool of those who fall short and those who have been on the political circuit since Gaybo went on Tv.

Beto has something but it just never took off.

Mayor Pete might be a VP type but he has plateaued as well.

eagle eye · 20-10-2019 1:28pm

Danzy wrote:

Mayor Pete might be a VP type but he has plateaued as well.

He is gay and the religious types will all be against him. For that reason. I don't think he is a good fit for VP. He'd be a good one to pick for an important cabinet role, I think he'd do well in a role that deals with other countries so Secretary of State would be a good post for him imo.

Danzy wrote:

Beto has something but it just never took off.

He gained a little with the El Paso thing but he needs somebody with a bit of intelligence to manage him.

Danzy wrote:

The potential candidates is a poor enough pool of those who fall short and those who have been on the political circuit since Gaybo went on Tv.

Yeah it's a huge problem, old guys and a woman who lacks charisma are the three main candidates, it's not good.

Overheal · 23-10-2019 1:31pm

It seems like all the Biden attack ads about Shokin and Burisma are doing their level best to root out the front runner of the Democratic primary - because, he’s running away with the latest poll. At 34% in the latest CNN poll that puts him at the peak of his candidacy so far

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/new-cnn-poll-joe-biden-increases-lead-over-political-rivals-highest-support-since-april/

I wonder how long the “Biden won’t win the nomination therefore Trump wasn’t engaged in quid pro quo” defense will hold.

pixelburp · 23-10-2019 2:21pm

538 are running an interesting article, breaking down the fallback preferences of Democrat voters; title item being that Warren is very popular as the backup / second choice of other leading candidates. Also of interest is that Biden & Sanders' supporters have the largest percentage of supporters ONLY considering them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/

Whatever about national elections, it does paint a picture that Warren's socialism seems to be more palatable than (say) Sanders'

reg114 · 23-10-2019 2:39pm

I think the Dems have an identity crisis on their hands and as such no single candidate stands out as someone strong enough to challenge Trump despite all of his awfulness.

Warren's main problem is she's an intellectual woman who speaks a language many Americans don't understand.

Biden is a journeyman politician who's prone to foot in mouth and who was lucky enough to have been given the golden ticket by Obama. He has neither the intellect nor the principles needed to get America on track

Buttigeig is a PR dream, saying all the right things, he's multi-lingual , articulate and a war vet, but his record as mayor is suspect and I really don't think he has enough experience to occupy the Oval office.

Sanders just had a heart attack and is 78 years of age. He reminds me of grandpa Simpson ranting and raving .. its an unkind analogy but its how many of the electorate will see him . Some of his ideas are worthy but like Biden he is far too old to tackle the job of running America, especially given the stresses it puts on fit men. Look at how Obama aged in his 8 years in the whitehouse.

Kamala Harris is a very impressive politician but hasnt a chance of being elected because she, much like Warren is an articulate intellectual woman. She is also a woman of colour and I dont believe America is mature enough to vote for a woman nevermind a woman of colour.

The rest of the candidates havent really registered with me and I dont see them feature. My gut says it'll come down to Biden v Warren for the vote. And unfortunately Biden will win the vote. If that happens you could very well be looking at another 4 years of Trump.

eagle eye · 23-10-2019 3:01pm

reg114 wrote:

Warren's main problem is she's an intellectual woman who speaks a language many Americans don't understand.

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma

reg114 wrote:

Biden is a journeyman politician who's prone to foot in mouth and who was lucky enough to have been given the golden ticket by Obama. He has neither the intellect nor the principles needed to get America on track

Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.

reg114 wrote:

Buttigeig is a PR dream, saying all the right things, he's multi-lingual , articulate and a war vet, but his record as mayor is suspect and I really don't think he has enough experience to occupy the Oval office.

Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.

reg114 wrote:

Sanders just had a heart attack and is 78 years of age. He reminds me of grandpa Simpson ranting and raving .. its an unkind analogy but its how many of the electorate will see him . Some of his ideas are worthy but like Biden he is far too old to tackle the job of running America, especially given the stresses it puts on fit men. Look at how Obama aged in his 8 years in the whitehouse.

He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.

reg114 wrote:

Kamala Harris is a very impressive politician but hasnt a chance of being elected because she, much like Warren is an articulate intellectual woman. She is also a woman of colour and I dont believe America is mature enough to vote for a woman nevermind a woman of colour.

Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

duploelabs · 23-10-2019 3:58pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma

Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.

Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.

He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.

Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

Trump lost the candidacy for the reform party

eagle eye · 23-10-2019 4:15pm

duploelabs wrote:

Trump lost the candidacy for the reform party

Yeah nobody knows anything about them. Ross Perot was a big enough name but besides him they get very little media attention.

The Phantom Jipper · 23-10-2019 4:50pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma

Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.

Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.

He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.

Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

Not sure I agree with either of these Warren takes. She's known for being able to break complicated things down so that they're easily understood. That's literally one of the things that's hyped up as being a quality of hers.

How is charisma being defined? My perception of her before the campaign was that she was meant to be a bit of a stiff. In reality she seems very good at dialling up the folksiness, and seems a good retail politician with the selfies etc. I think this is reflected in her having the lowest unfavorability ratings of all the candidates.

Overheal · 25-10-2019 4:58pm

Next Debate threshold puts Tulsi, Castro and Beto under the gun to gain traction in the polls and secure more donors

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in.

Danzy · 25-10-2019 5:16pm

Overheal wrote: »

Next Debate threshold puts Tulsi, Castro and Beto under the gun to gain traction in the polls and secure more donors

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in.

Hard to figure out why they aren't cutting more aggressively.

Guess they have their reasons.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments