Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Farmer Br0wn]

I couldn't agree more

Klobuchar can relate to people in the Midwest
making her the biggest threat of them all

Klobuchar's stance on gun control will make her a complete non-starter in the Mid-West, South, and Rust Belt.

She supports so called "assault weapon" bans, and bans on standard capacity magazines.

 

[Andy Capp]

I think the Democrats will be basically shooting themselves in the ass if they don't whittle down the number of candidates quickly.

The large number is weird to me after the criticisms of the Republican party field in 2016. It also doesn't make sense since there seems to be a lot of mutual support among them. If I had any say, I'd corral them all into one room and hash out the 2 or 3 (4 at most) best candidates with a commitment from the others to fully throw their support behind at least one of them.

 

[Lead]

I think this is great news and points to the democrats moving in the right direction (presuming they will actually enact legislation and not just make promises.)

The article pointed to my main concern with the rent subsidy proposals. I see them as being wide open to being gamed. What's to stop me from moving into a place that's 50% more expensive than what I need or can afford if it's going to be paid for? Then I can wait for rents to go up all around and move into some place even more expensive.

I think the proposal by Warren it mentioned (but not analyzed) to build more housing would be better or at least should go hand in hand with any of these proposals and tight regulations on what local renters would be permitted to do in terms of rent increases and so on would be required to keep it from being just a big scam.

Yea, I think rent controls/subsidies also are very much an urban specific issue too because of how expensive the center of a city can become and push people farther and father into the suburbs. Work and living displacement is always going to be a hard issue to address and is one of the uphill battles candidates have with the rust belt states. I think the same issue applies with rent control. There aren’t many ways around ignoring that the location is more valuable and people eventually are going to need to move. Like you said, there’s also a scam element to it as well on top of that.

 

[Lead]

I think the Democrats will be basically shooting themselves in the ass if they don't whittle down the number of candidates quickly.

The large number is weird to me after the criticisms of the Republican party field in 2016. It also doesn't make sense since there seems to be a lot of mutual support among them. If I had any say, I'd corral them all into one room and hash out the 2 or 3 (4 at most) best candidates with a commitment from the others to fully throw their support behind at least one of them.

I think about 14 will run and at least four aren’t relevant and shouldn’t be given much media or even a debate stage considering their experience at this point. That leaves it at 10 which I honestly don’t think is too bad. Maybe if California wasn’t moved sooner but that state likely is going to get many of the far left candidates to make a decision afterwards. My guess is after California, you get a 5-6 person race if people aren’t being media whores and dropping out when they know they can’t win.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yea, I think rent controls/subsidies also are very much an urban specific issue too because of how expensive the center of a city can become and push people farther and father into the suburbs. Work and living displacement is always going to be a hard issue to address and is one of the uphill battles candidates have with the rust belt states. I think the same issue applies with rent control. There aren’t many ways around ignoring that the location is more valuable and people eventually are going to need to move. Like you said, there’s also a scam element to it as well on top of that.

Increasing urban density (which means building more units, which would reduce prices) should be a big part of our national strategy to grow the economy, reduce emissions, and generally raise living standards, though. Harris' idea was dumb, and rent control is worse, but high housing costs in desirable areas is a serious national problem.

 

[VivaRevolution]

 

[VivaRevolution]

If that is Gabbard's stump speech, people better watch out for her. That speech will resonate.

 

[Lead]

Increasing urban density (which means building more units, which would reduce prices) should be a big part of our national strategy to grow the economy, reduce emissions, and generally raise living standards, though. Harris' idea was dumb, and rent control is worse, but high housing costs in desirable areas is a serious national problem.

I can see a national argument for that since more and more of the population is moving within cities.

 

[Lead]

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota joins Democratic race for 2020
Washington Post

Klobuchar, who easily won reelection to the Senate in November, announced she is joining the 2020 presidential race. She has emphasized her Midwest roots and ability to connect with people who voted for President Trump in 2016.

Three other female senators and one male senator — Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) — have joined the race, and others are considering it.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

 

[Trotsky]

I was bullish on Sanders at the start, but I don't see it at this point. My thinking was that he could be the kind of Palmeiro/Trump candidate--in a big field, anyone with a decent bloc of support can win. But given that high recognition, the fact that he hasn't jumped out to an early lead in polling now looks like it's just that voters don't want him. I think I overstated his base, in part because of the media narrative of the race (which, note, he lost by 12 points and much of his support was likely coming from anyone who wasn't happy with the nominee, regardless of how much they supported him as an individual). Early polling is looking really good for Biden, but I suspect that will go way down if he actually starts campaigning (he's run before and never done too well, and I could be biased here because I'm not a fan, but I think exposure will be bad for him).

Harris is looking like she has a shot, but there are also some subsets that are strongly opposed to her. I think she'll do increasingly worse as the field thins. I think O'Rourke and Klobuchar have shots. Beto really inspired the base nationally and did exceptionally well relative to his electorate lean. Klobuchar has consistently done well by that measure. I also think it would be underestimating the field to say that only six people (I see Brown and Warren being strong, too) have a chance. Good chance that someone unexpected slips in there.

Generally, I think it's inherently unpredictable because unforeseeable future events will have a large impact on the shape of the race. And aside from it being difficult for a serious, informed, intelligent analyst to predict, most people just spout off ignorantly and let their own bias guide their "analysis" ("candidate I dislike will surely lose unless the media is biased," "candidate I like will win unless he gets screwed," or some shit).

Well....Sanders hasn't announced, and I actually think he's polling extremely well, particularly with black voters, which are a/the key demographic in the primary: black voters are more enthusiastic about him running than white voters by far. His obstacle will be older white party loyalists with hurt butts from the 2016 primary, but we'll whip them into line.

Also noticing a media blackout on Vermin Supreme. If the MSM doesn't cover his campaign wall to wall, Trump will win.

You know I'm not huge on Gabbard, but this is a shit post. If Gabbard didn't have serious traction (much more serious than Bloomberg or the Starbucks dude) she's wouldn't be talked about so often around these parts and in every liberal/left-wing media outlet. And her base is the definitive cross-party political demographic of our time: anti-establishment center-libertarians.

I can't ascribe insidious motives, but them leaving out Gabbard is a very glaring omission.

 

[ElKarlo]

I think the Democrats will be basically shooting themselves in the ass if they don't whittle down the number of candidates quickly.

The large number is weird to me after the criticisms of the Republican party field in 2016. It also doesn't make sense since there seems to be a lot of mutual support among them. If I had any say, I'd corral them all into one room and hash out the 2 or 3 (4 at most) best candidates with a commitment from the others to fully throw their support behind at least one of them.

I agree, it zeems odd thays they're all seemingly running.
Maybe this shows that the Democratic party is splintering, with members spreading out all over the spectrum? Def is going to add to the fatigue given that there's been so many.

 

[ElKarlo]

Increasing urban density (which means building more units, which would reduce prices) should be a big part of our national strategy to grow the economy, reduce emissions, and generally raise living standards, though. Harris' idea was dumb, and rent control is worse, but high housing costs in desirable areas is a serious national problem.

NIMBY is killing housing in many areas. Houston doesn't have zoning and it has comparably cheaper housing.

 

[waiguoren]

Klobuchar announced a few hours ago.

Among the field, she is one of the few that I believe would give Trump problems. Actually, I cap her as a favorite in a head-to-head vs. Trump.

 

[waiguoren]

I was bullish on Sanders at the start, but I don't see it at this point. My thinking was that he could be the kind of Palmeiro/Trump candidate--in a big field, anyone with a decent bloc of support can win. But given that high recognition, the fact that he hasn't jumped out to an early lead in polling now looks like it's just that voters don't want him. I think I overstated his base, in part because of the media narrative of the race (which, note, he lost by 12 points and much of his support was likely coming from anyone who wasn't happy with the nominee, regardless of how much they supported him as an individual). Early polling is looking really good for Biden, but I suspect that will go way down if he actually starts campaigning (he's run before and never done too well, and I could be biased here because I'm not a fan, but I think exposure will be bad for him).

Harris is looking like she has a shot, but there are also some subsets that are strongly opposed to her. I think she'll do increasingly worse as the field thins. I think O'Rourke and Klobuchar have shots. Beto really inspired the base nationally and did exceptionally well relative to his electorate lean. Klobuchar has consistently done well by that measure. I also think it would be underestimating the field to say that only six people (I see Brown and Warren being strong, too) have a chance. Good chance that someone unexpected slips in there.

Generally, I think it's inherently unpredictable because unforeseeable future events will have a large impact on the shape of the race. And aside from it being difficult for a serious, informed, intelligent analyst to predict, most people just spout off ignorantly and let their own bias guide their "analysis" ("candidate I dislike will surely lose unless the media is biased," "candidate I like will win unless he gets screwed," or some shit).

Some good stuff in this post.

I think someone should highlight the discrepancy in attributes needed to win the Democratic nomination vs. those needed to beat Trump in the general. For example, I think Harris stands a pretty decent chance of winning the Democratic nomination but I think she would lose soundly to Trump.

On the other hand, I am unsure of Klobuchar's ability to win the nomination (e.g., she seems not to have good name recognition even among Democrats) but I cap her as a moderate favorite to beat Trump.

 

[Andy Capp]

Some good stuff in this post.

I think someone should highlight the discrepancy in attributes needed to win the Democratic nomination vs. those needed to beat Trump in the general. For example, I think Harris stands a pretty decent chance of winning the Democratic nomination but I think she would lose soundly to Trump.

On the other hand, I am unsure of Kloubachar's ability to win the nomination (e.g., she seems not to have good name recognition even among Democrats) but I cap her as a moderate favorite to beat Trump.

Oh, look who's back.

I think there's 0 chance any of the "some names are un-American" crowd will vote for her, so there goes any hope of swinging any of Trump's base, and I think all the other candidates are as capable at attracting almost everyone else. I don't think she has the name recognition to win either one. But I guess we'll see.

 

[waiguoren]

Oh, look who's back.

Aren't you the guy who used to pollute lots of threads with hotdog gifs?

I believe I have a bet outstanding with your alt account.

Nice to see you again.

I think there's 0 chance any of the "some names are un-American" crowd will vote for her, so there goes any hope of swinging any of Trump's base, and I think all the other candidates are as capable at attracting almost everyone else. I don't think she has the name recognition to win either one. But I guess we'll see.

Disagree. Klobuchar has a lot going for her vs Trump. She undercuts his biggest advantage (rustbelt appeal), is a prosecutor, and according to Nate Silver she is one of the nation's top performers net of incumbency and state partisanship.

By contrast, Robert O'Rourke (another candidate who I think could give Trump some problems) only checks off one of those boxes. Same for Harris.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well....Sanders hasn't announced, and I actually think he's polling extremely well, particularly with black voters, which are a/the key demographic in the primary: black voters are more enthusiastic about him running than white voters by far. His obstacle will be older white party loyalists with hurt butts from the 2016 primary, but we'll whip them into line.

I'm willing to let time settle this one. Remember your thinking on it (as I'll remember mine), and we'll see.

You know I'm not huge on Gabbard, but this is a shit post. If Gabbard didn't have serious traction (much more serious than Bloomberg or the Starbucks dude) she's wouldn't be talked about so often around these parts and in every liberal/left-wing media outlet. And her base is the definitive cross-party political demographic of our time: anti-establishment center-libertarians.

I can't ascribe insidious motives, but them leaving out Gabbard is a very glaring omission.

I really only see the WR talk about Gabbard. She's ridiculously unqualified, her campaign is in disarray (and an incompetent staff hurts with coverage), she has almost no support, and she seems like an obvious Trojan Horse candidate (boosted by the right to hurt the left).

 

[Trotsky]

I'm willing to let time settle this one. Remember your thinking on it (as I'll remember mine), and we'll see.



I really only see the WR talk about Gabbard. She's ridiculously unqualified, her campaign is in disarray (and an incompetent staff hurts with coverage), she has almost no support, and she seems like an obvious Trojan Horse candidate (boosted by the right to hurt the left).

Well, as I said, she clearly gets ample positive coverage across the spectrum, from support (DemocracyNow), to sorted nods (Intercept), to ignorant respect (Fox News).

And, for being "ridiculously unqualified," would you not agree that she's more qualified than two of the listed candidates (Oprah and HS)? And certainly more so than Trump or many of his 2016 high profile opponents (Carson, Fiorina).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, as I said, she clearly gets ample positive coverage across the spectrum, from support (DemocracyNow), to sorted nods (Intercept), to ignorant respect (Fox News).

And, for being "ridiculously unqualified," would you not agree that she's more qualified than two of the listed candidates (Oprah and HS)? And certainly more so than Trump or many of his 2016 high profile opponents (Carson, Fiorina).

I looked up Gabbard's name on DN, and they covered her prelim announcement, her official announcement, and her apology. That's the level of coverage she gets from other sources.

I'm not a fan of people running for president with no political experience, but I certainly wouldn't agree that she's better-qualified than anyone you named.

 

[Andy Capp]

Aren't you the guy who used to pollute lots of threads with hotdog gifs?

I believe I have a bet outstanding with your alt account.

Nice to see you again.



Disagree. Kloubachar has a lot going for her vs Trump. She undercuts his biggest advantage (rustbelt appeal), is a prosecutor, and according to Nate Silver she is one of the nation's top performers net of incumbency and state partisanship.

By contrast, Robert O'Rourke (another candidate who I think could give Trump some problems) only checks off one of those boxes. Same for Harris.

No. I'm not Homer. But I think you know that.

I think Kloubachar will suffer a name recognition deficit. So, agree to disagree.