Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Happy Man]

So I get why JVS doesn't like Gabbard as a candidate, but I have to ask why he thinks her character is a liability.

This gets attacked a lot in the MSM, but with shady reasoning behind it. Her character is literally her strongest attribute as a candidate.

The establishment hates her foreign policy. That's all. So they character assassinate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's really interesting you say all this, JVS, because Clinton as a centrist was really supposed to have me as her prime demographic. But, to me, it was her character that continuously made her a nonviable candidate. Again, not as bad as Trump, but still someone I couldn't in good conscience vote for.

I think Clinton's character was one of her strengths, though she kind of got swiftboated on it (dishonest attacks on a strength to turn it into a weakness). I think if you compare her to Gabbard in all ways, you can see a really clear illustration of the kind of person who one can expect would be a good president and the kind of person who gives no reason to expect that.

With regards to Gabbard, what do her supporters have to defend about her character? If you're talking about established dialogs with Assad, El-Sisi, and Modi, this fits right in line with her thinking of how to handle international relations. Are you arguing that because an approach to solving certain international problems differs from your preferred approach it would make a person immoral? I would argue that at most it'd make them wrong.

I wouldn't frame it as "dialogs" but that's one area where she seems highly compromised, yeah. Not just wrong, but wrong in a way that makes one question if she's making a good-faith effort. Generally with regard to foreign policy, I'm very loose. I know that stuff is extremely complicated, and I'm far from an expert on it myself. Lots of smart, well-intentioned folks reach different conclusions. But when you let yourself get wined and dined by a thug and then do a PR tour for him, it's a bad look.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Property rights enforcement can be handled by a small government. No big government needed.

Ignoring the disingenuous responses, what we see is that you want the gov't to dominate people rather than to be an instrument of collective decision-making.

 

[waiguoren]

Ignoring the disingenuous responses, what we see is that you want the gov't to dominate people rather than to be an instrument of collective decision-making.

There were no disingenuous responses.

I do not want the government to dominate people.

I do want powerful democratic elements to exist within our government.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There were no disingenuous responses.

I do not want the government to dominate people.

I do want powerful democratic elements to exist within our government.

But not so powerful that an overwhelmingly popular program like SS should be allowed to exist? If property is going to be imposed on the population and they don't get any say in their governance, what is that other than the "gov't as an occupying force" model as opposed to the liberal model?

 

[killakoy]

I think Clinton's character was one of her strengths, though she kind of got swiftboated on it (dishonest attacks on a strength to turn it into a weakness). I think if you compare her to Gabbard in all ways, you can see a really clear illustration of the kind of person who one can expect would be a good president and the kind of person who gives no reason to expect that.

We won't agree on this, but there were more than a few instances in Clinton's career where it was definitely not simple spin that construed her in a negative light.

I wouldn't frame it as "dialogs" but that's one area where she seems highly compromised, yeah. Not just wrong, but wrong in a way that makes one question if she's making a good-faith effort. Generally with regard to foreign policy, I'm very loose. I know that stuff is extremely complicated, and I'm far from an expert on it myself. Lots of smart, well-intentioned folks reach different conclusions. But when you let yourself get wined and dined by a thug and then do a PR tour for him, it's a bad look.

And this goes back to how you approach foreign policy. On the one side, you're opening yourself up for PR nightmares by approaching reprehensible dictatorships. On the other side, you're establishing communication that presents possibilities of real change or at least stability.

I see these dialogs as no different than our Saudi courtship that happens with every presidency. So to argue a moral high-ground seems like a very untenable position.

And with similar blow-back, I actually think what Trump did with North Korea is a good idea (minus the build-up of hostilities before entering dialog). I just wish it was done by a more competent person.

 

[waiguoren]

If property is going to be imposed on the population

I think this framing is silly. I think owning property is a natural thing for people to do. I think people banding together to create a system of property rights/enforcement is a natural extension of that. Your framing of this as an imposition makes no sense to me.

But not so powerful that an overwhelmingly popular program like SS should be allowed to exist?

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Ignoring legal considerations (SS in unconstitutional), SS should continue to exist until House+Senate+President can agree to phase it out.

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

(Friend responds to your post #705 and your other statements)


I think that’s a fair answer. I simply disagree with him about the value of military service. His position is essentially “any experience below General rank is worthless.” That is a matter of opinion and I disagree strongly. I do think making General would be a significantly higher qualification than Major, but Major is still worth something in terms of experience, and any military service at all is worth something in terms of demonstrating commitment and sacrifice for our country.

Although I disagree with him on some details, the central thrust of his argument is solid. She has many good presidential qualities imo, but I have to concede she is sorely lacking in proven large-scale management experience, and that is important.

The fundamental question is: Would Tulsi Gabbard make an excellent president in 2021? I don’t know with any degree of certainty. And that isn’t good enough. He apparently answers that question with a resounding “no,” which I think is overconfident on his part, but if I can’t answer with an equally confident, “yes,” then I probably shouldn’t vote for her.

I think I will still support her candidacy for three reasons:
1. I want American voters - particularly Democrats - to take a hard look at American interventionism and Military-Industrial-Intelligence overreach. I think Gabbard does a great job of attacking that issue and will make sure it is part of the debate.
2. I think she may well make an excellent president some day so it would be good for her to gain more national recognition as she acquires the requisite experience.
3. I think she could make an excellent VP in 2021, and that experience would be sufficient to fill the current gap in her executive resume.

==========

Also, I figured you would want to know why he preferred Gabbard to the field, so I asked him. Here is his response:


Regarding your earlier question about why I prefer her to other candidates, I would actually need to do more research on the other candidates. I have to admit, I made up my mind that I liked Gabbard as a future presidential candidate back in 2016, and I hadn’t been following this race until she entered it. So, I am under-informed about her competitors.

I can say right now that supporting the overthrow of stable governments is pretty much an automatic disqualifier for me. There may be exceptions to that, but none that I can think of right now. There are many awful governments out there, but I think history has demonstrated that external powers overthrowing awful governments is usually the greater of the two evils.

Most American politicians seem not to have learned that lesson.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think I will still support her candidacy for three reasons:
1. I want American voters - particularly Democrats - to take a hard look at American interventionism and Military-Industrial-Intelligence overreach. I think Gabbard does a great job of attacking that issue and will make sure it is part of the debate.
2. I think she may well make an excellent president some day so it would be good for her to gain more national recognition as she acquires the requisite experience.
3. I think she could make an excellent VP in 2021, and that experience would be sufficient to fill the current gap in her executive resume.

Generally appreciate the posts.

I actually think the position he implies in 1 is mainstream among Democrats, and I don't really see any reason to think Gabbard stands out in any way on the issue. Heck, she calls herself a hawk.

The second position to me just lacks any basis. Maybe over time she develops an interest in a few areas and becomes an expert and promotes good ideas to deal with significant issues related to those areas, maybe she gets on major committees or gets elected to higher offices and distinguishes herself, etc. It's possible that after all that, she could be a solid presidential candidate (and still be relatively young by the standards of presidential candidates). But let's see it. It's like looking at a mediocre pitching prospect and saying, "well, if he develops a new pitch and improves his command, he could be good." Yeah, but that doesn't make him a good prospect.

Being VP would improve her (@Trotsky) CV, though I'd have the same issues with giving her that position that I do with trusting her with the presidency (as the VP has to be ready to step into that role).

Also, I figured you would want to know why he preferred Gabbard to the field, so I asked him. Here is his response:

Regarding your earlier question about why I prefer her to other candidates, I would actually need to do more research on the other candidates. I have to admit, I made up my mind that I liked Gabbard as a future presidential candidate back in 2016, and I hadn’t been following this race until she entered it. So, I am under-informed about her competitors.

OK, that's fair. My top three at this time would be (in no order) Warren, Brown, and Klobuchar. I have some reservations about all three (Brown on trade, for example; recent very bad idea from Klobuchar), but there's never been a candidate in any party I'd support without reservations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think this framing is silly. I think owning property is a natural thing for people to do. I think people banding together to create a system of property rights/enforcement is a natural extension of that. Your framing of this as an imposition makes no sense to me.

I think the framing is objectively correct from both a historical and logical perspective. People banding together to create a system of shared land use is natural, but the particular system that we have is not natural (and note that the system we have is still quite a bit different from and more democratic than what, say, right-wing libertarians want).

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Ignoring legal considerations (SS in unconstitutional), SS should continue to exist until House+Senate+President can agree to phase it out.

SS has been found to be Constitutional. If you propose to unilaterally assign yourself to be the sole arbiter of what is Constitutional, that's also proposing big gov't and authoritarianism.

 

[Trotsky]

I do want powerful democratic elements to exist within our government.

Wait. Didn't you enthusiastically support a gubernatorial candidate that was knowingly invalidating the votes of thousands of people on the basis of voter fraud claims that were consistently shown to be farcical and without any evidentiary basis?

I think Clinton's character was one of her strengths, though she kind of got swiftboated on it (dishonest attacks on a strength to turn it into a weakness). I think if you compare her to Gabbard in all ways, you can see a really clear illustration of the kind of person who one can expect would be a good president and the kind of person who gives no reason to expect that.

I think you're presenting a much vaguer concept of character than most people use, then. Clinton's strengths were certainly not the basis for her character concerns, at least from the left.

Anyways, the American right's flippant and sporadic reliance on "anti-interventionism" as the basis for their support and/or opposition is pretty obviously insincere. They all bitched and moaned for the past several decades about Democrats not being hawkish enough and continued that criticism toward Obama, saying that he was conciliatory and weak, and now they've spun on a dime and are trying to qualify their support for more hawkish Republican candidates by pointing out the hawkishness of less hawkish Democrats. It's pitifully transparent even if it's not something they are actively cognizant of.

 

[waiguoren]

I think the framing is objectively correct from both a historical and logical perspective. People banding together to create a system of shared land use is natural, but the particular system that we have is not natural

You seem to be claiming that, starting from scratch, 100% common land ownership is a more natural choice than private property after an initial equitable land distribution. I don't believe that. I think different societies would choose differently on that question depending on multiple factors including culture and geography.

The crucial point is: I think that failure to create an explicit system of ownership usually leads to tyranny, as power-hungry people will inevitably abuse others and aggregate power for themselves. So I think your model of happy poor people working common land in perpetuity (apologies if this is a strawman) is idealized nonsense. I'm sure you think the minarchist model I'm pushing is the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You seem to be claiming that, starting from scratch, 100% common land ownership is a more natural choice than private property after an initial equitable land distribution. I don't believe that. I think different societies would choose differently on that question depending on multiple factors including culture and geography.

I don't know how it would seem that way. "People banding together to create a system of shared land use is natural, but the particular system that we have is not natural." There are many different observed types of stateless property arrangements, but setting it up so land can be bought and sold as if it's a steak is not something that occurred to people for more than 99% of our history. It's ironic because your fanaticism actually leads you to undersell the private property system, which was a great innovation in human history and likely played a big role in the leap forward in living standards that followed it. It's not a wonderful thing, but we should be realistic and acknowledge that it was a massive social-engineering experiment pushed by gov'ts on unwilling (often violently so) publics, and not just something that grew organically out of human nature or culture.

The crucial point is: I think that failure to create an explicit system of ownership usually leads to tyranny, as power-hungry people will inevitably abuse others and aggregate power for themselves. So I think your model of happy poor people working common land in perpetuity (apologies if this is a strawman) is idealized nonsense. I'm sure you think the minarchist model I'm pushing is the same.

My actual model is cool, though, right?

 

[Renard]

They probably gave all the questions in advance to Kamala. She's a woman by the way, you're sexist if you don't vote for her. A deplorable, even. Tulsi is secretly controlled by Putin, so she doesn't count.

 

[Lead]

California’s move to Super Tuesday hands Harris a big edge in 2020
Politico

Kamala Harris is building a wall around California.

The Democratic senator has been activating her forces on the home front since launching her White House bid last month — cornering some of the state’s most prolific donors, locking down big endorsements and homing in on a statewide blueprint to rack up early delegates.


California’s Super Tuesday primary is foundational to Harris’ plans to win the nomination. Her home-state advantage is an enormous asset, holding the promise of a huge haul of delegates early in the nomination fight. At the same time, a poor performance there could end her bid.

 

[Lead]

For Some 2020 Democrats, Rejection of Amazon Aligns With Far-Left Policy Views
New York Times

The decision by Amazon this week to abandon its planned headquarters in New York City tapped into one of the major themes of left-wing Democrats: that giant corporations — and in some cases the billionaires who run them — must be held to account for wage inequality, corporate greed and middle-class stagnation.

And some contenders and would-be contenders for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination were quick to take a victory lap over the retailer’s sudden reversal.

The economic incentives offered the company amounted to no more than “taxpayer bribes,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who accused Amazon of holding American democracy “hostage.”

 

[Lead]

Most 2020 Democratic candidates opposed spending bill
Roll Call

Senate Democrats eyeing the White House split their vote Thursday on the compromise spending package that would avert another government shutdown, with nearly all the candidates who have already announced bids voting against it.

The Senate overwhelmingly adopted the conference report, 83-16, but five Democrats, including four presidential contenders — Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — joined 11 Republicans in voting ‘no.’

Of the announced candidates, only Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar supported the measure. Vermont independent Bernie Sanders (who caucuses with the Democrat) and Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, neither of whom have officially jumped in the race, also voted for the package as did Colorado’s Michael Bennet and Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, who are said to be weighing 2020 runs.

 

[Lead]

Nevada and its Latino voters could be first major test for 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls
Fox News

LAS VEGAS -- While a lot of the focus for the 2020 presidential primary race typically lies with Iowa or New Hampshire, an unsuspecting state out West might serve as a true bellwether for Democrats – Nevada.

Unlike Iowa or New Hampshire, which are predominately white, Nevada has a diverse population that could serve as the first true test for Democrats to appeal to their base.

“You know with Nevada being third in line there's not very many delegates at stake. But it is a very diverse state,” Lucy Flores, a former member of the Nevada State Assembly and Democratic strategist, told Fox News. “And it is very indicative of the population of the rest of Nevada that make up the rest of the United States. Nevada is very much the face of this country in terms of demographics, in terms of gender, age, etc.”

 

[Lead]

How significant do you guys really think Iowa and New Hampshire are for this primary? I actually think South Carolina and Nevada are going to be seen as more important to quite a few candidates and will cause the field to not shrink after the first two states like it normally does.

 

[Lead]

Bernie Sanders records video announcing 2020 campaign
Politco

Bernie Sanders, inching closer to a second bid for the White House, has recorded a campaign video in which he says he is running for president in 2020, according to two people familiar with the spot.

It’s the latest sign the independent senator, the runner-up in the 2016 contest for the Democratic nomination, is nearing a presidential announcement.


Another hint that Sanders is getting closer to a launch: As POLITICOreported this week, the Sanders team has been interviewing people for top staff positions. Chuck Rocha, a political consultant who advised Sanders’ 2016 campaign, is expected to join him again if a second bid materializes.