Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[HereticBD]

??? I posted thoughts on the video in 1810, after Anung responded to my points, like I said I would.

Sue me.

 

[PEB]

 

[HereticBD]

It begins...

 

[Phisher]

Hell of a first day.









He's going to be this cycle's Jeb! Can't wait to watch him crash and burn.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting exchange on Twitter here:



Obviously, the fact that both Silver and Karol noticed that isn't proof of anything, but it illustrates the point that conventional wisdom among people who actually study the issue is very different from the conventional wisdom among WR CT nuts.

 

[Lead]

Joe Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020
Vox

To a certain kind of Democratic Party establishmentarian, Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she was not “likable” enough — a sentiment that may or may not be thinly veiled code for saying that she’s a woman. Their solution in 2020 is good old Joe Biden.

Biden, on the likability frame, is the opposite of Clinton — a back-slapping pol man who enjoys shooting the breeze with reporters. But the reality is Clinton was plenty likable at key moments in her career. Most notably, one of the main reasons the Democratic Party rallied around her so hard in 2014-’15 is that when she was secretary of state, her approval ratings were far higher than Barack Obama’s, and she was an in-demand midterms surrogate even in states where he was toxic.

Biden, meanwhile, was not especially popular as vice president during Obama’s first six years in office and only saw his numbers rise as he appeared to step out of the electoral arena — swapping places with Clinton as the kind of generic Famous Democrat Who Isn’t Running.

 

[Lead]

The rude awakening creeping up on Kamala Harris
Politco

Joe Biden has yet to formally declare his presidential bid, but he’s already complicating Kamala Harris' path to victory in a must-win state: South Carolina.

The pivotal early primary state is the linchpin of Harris' strategy to capture the Democratic nomination, yet the former vice president’s experience, pragmatism and close association with former President Barack Obama have given him a significant advantage here — even more so than in other states, according to more than two dozen interviews with state operatives and elected leaders, as well as public and private polling.

African-Americans and women make up strong majorities of Democratic primary voters here, and Harris aggressively courted local support last weekend in her fourth visit of the young campaign, which focused on rural areas. Biden, meanwhile, starts with broad across-the-board backing from an array of establishment Democrats to rank-and-file black voters. His overall early support skews toward older South Carolinians that form the most reliable voting bloc — and who are assembling to support Biden right away when he jumps into the race this week. State Rep. Jerry Govan, the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, told POLITICO he expects Biden to receive “a warm welcome from a very diverse group of South Carolinians.”

Interesting take. Do you all think Harris would stay in the race until California even with bad performance in states she may be targeting like SC?

 

[waiguoren]

I wasn't expecting this, but I might end up supporting Peter Buttigieg for president. One thing I like is that he proposes constitutional amendments for things that are clearly beyond the scope of federal power instead of just calling for legislation or executive orders. I'm not aware of any other D/R candidates going that route.

 

[Lead]

I wasn't expecting this, but I might end up supporting Buttigieg for president. One thing I like is that he proposes constitutional amendments for things that are clearly beyond the scope of federal power instead of just calling for legislation or executive orders. I'm not aware of any other D/R candidates going that route.

It's an honest way to get around a question too that he can't really do anything about because it sounds like he's attempting to make a big sweeping move but we know any Constitutional amendment won't likely happen. Keeps the casuals happy while subtly giving an honest answer they wouldn't like if they knew what it meant.

 

[waiguoren]

It's an honest way to get around a question too that he can't really do anything about because it sounds like he's attempting to make a big sweeping move but we know any Constitutional amendment won't likely happen. Keeps the casuals happy while subtly giving an honest answer they wouldn't like if they knew what it meant.

Yeah, I see how he could be playing me. I also know I probably can't trust him to make SCOTUS picks that I agree with, and that's one of my top issues.

The specific issue I was referring to was on money in politics. He proposes a constitutional amendment to "get money out of politics". That's pretty vague, but I see myself supporting it in most forms it could possibly take. O the other hand, I would oppose legislation or executive orders to do the same thing.

 

[Lead]

Yeah, I see how he could be playing me. I also know I probably can't trust him to make SCOTUS picks that I agree with, and that's one of my top issues.

The specific issue I was referring to was on money in politics. He proposes a constitutional amendment to "get money out of politics". That's pretty vague, but I see myself supporting it in most forms it could possibly take. O the other hand, I would oppose legislation or executive orders to do the same thing.

I'm not necessarily saying he's playing you. I'm just saying his answer is crafty because the other options are:
1) Lie and say he could just do X
2) Be honest and say it isn't likely to happen
but he choose a hybrid
3) Be honest with what he could do and not mention how nearly impossible it would be for it to work

How do you think you can get money out of politics?

 

[Happy Man]

God, can’t listen to more than 39 seconds of that thing drone on and on in permanent bitch mode.

 

[waiguoren]

I'm not necessarily saying he's playing you. I'm just saying his answer is crafty because the other options are:
1) Lie and say he could just do X
2) Be honest and say it isn't likely to happen
but he choose a hybrid
3) Be honest with what he could do and not mention how nearly impossible it would be for it to work

Right, I understand. I'm just saying there's a good chance he's not being sincere if he made such a calculation.

How do you think you can get money out of politics?

I definitely haven't thought about it enough. First-pass answer is:

• the amendment would require public funding of all campaign expenditures for federal offices in an amount determined first by the text of the amendment, with any future increases to come through the legislative process.
• campaigns would be forbidden from receiving private contributions from any private entity
• a full accounting of all campaign expenditures, subject to routine audit, must be published every month
• Force a similar arrangement upon the states

This totally fails to address the issue with PACs and other groups running advertisements, however. I'm not even sure if that's something that needs to be addressed, but if it is I think it gets very very thorny.

 

[Lead]

Right, I understand. I'm just saying there's a good chance he's not being sincere if he made such a calculation.

Understood. I think he can be sincere though and still understand the uphill battle. It isn't necessarily a slimy thing to say imo.

I definitely haven't thought about it enough. First-pass answer is:

• the amendment would require public funding of all campaign expenditures for federal offices in an amount determined first by the text of the amendment, with any future increases to come through the legislative process.
• campaigns would be forbidden from receiving private contributions from any private entity
• a full accounting of all campaign expenditures, subject to routine audit, must be published every month
• Force a similar arrangement upon the states

This totally fails to address the issue with PACs and other groups running advertisements, however. I'm not even sure if that's something that needs to be addressed, but if it is I think it gets very very thorny.

So would you do a voucher system where voters could publicly fund a candidate? I'm still uncertain how you distribute the public funding based on candidate.

I rather just have them make PACs more transparent then try to reign in campaign finance. Just force any group that gets involved to make disclosures and I'm pretty much okay with money involved.

 

[PEB]

The rude awakening creeping up on Kamala Harris
Politco

Interesting take. Do you all think Harris would stay in the race until California even with bad performance in states she may be targeting like SC?

Bernie already getting major South Carolina people support it seems. Could change but it's going to help.

 

[Lead]

Bernie already getting major South Carolina people support it seems. Could change but it's going to help.

Doesn't seem to be many or any SC polls yet so hard to say. I'm still skeptical about the current polls until we have at least 2 or more debates. Everything right now seems to be name recognition aside from the Buttigeig spike. I think things can shift around a lot as soon as they all are on stage together.

 

[waiguoren]

Understood. I think he can be sincere though and still understand the uphill battle. It isn't necessarily a slimy thing to say imo.

I agree with you. Also, the mere phrase "constitutional amendment" is music to my ears. People are imitators, and when an influential person like Buttigieg uses a phrase, other people will start using it too. That's basically what culture is, and we need to update our culture in this regard. The Constitution hasn't been amended for almost 30 years, and people rarely talk about it.

So would you do a voucher system where voters could publicly fund a candidate?

No. Never heard of that idea before. I think that system could be corrupted quite easily.

I'm still uncertain how you distribute the public funding based on candidate.

Just a fixed sum per candidate's campaign from the treasury, say $3 million. I seem to recall that the UK does something like this. Thorny issue would be threshold of support before the funding kicks in. Right now there are nearly 700 candidates running for 2020 (685 last I checked), and obviously the vast majority should not be getting funding.

I rather just have them make PACs more transparent then try to reign in campaign finance. Just force any group that gets involved to make disclosures

But that gets thorny. What if I, a private citizen, want to pay for a pro-Cory Booker browser ad? I have to disclose that? I think the enforcement bureaucracy could get really bloated really quickly and/or corruption in enforcement would sneak in quickly.

 

[Lead]

No. Never heard of that idea before. I think that system could be corrupted quite easily.

Just a fixed sum per candidate's campaign from the treasury, say $3 million. I seem to recall that the UK does something like this. Thorny issue would be threshold of support before the funding kicks in. Right now there are nearly 700 candidates running for 2020 (685 last I checked), and obviously the vast majority should not be getting funding.

That's where I still see a problem however. Like is your threshold of support based on polling or signed petitions? Polling could make it insanely corrupt. Signed petitions to me would sound just a similar as vouchers. I don't know the name of it but it's a system where each person had x amount to submit in to fund candidate(s). This would level the economic field since the voucher represents public funds and also would level the power as whatever economic class you were in, you'd still have the same amount to your voucher.

But that gets thorny. What if I, a private citizen, want to pay for a pro-Cory Booker browser ad? I have to disclose that? I think the enforcement bureaucracy could get really bloated really quickly and/or corruption in enforcement would sneak in quickly.

I suppose. That's a very small case however. Most of these groups are dealing with millions in PAC money. I think when it comes to enforcement, you go after the big fish and not just some average joe trying to advertise for the campaign. If it's a fairly rich person who is putting in significant amount of adwords/etc, they would have enough resources to go through a PAC or disclose themselves.

 

[waiguoren]

That's where I still see a problem however. Like is your threshold of support based on polling or signed petitions?

I guess the core question is: does there exist a neutral and incorruptible means of measuring "support"? I'm thinking not, so that's a great point.

Polling could make it insanely corrupt. Signed petitions to me would sound just a similar as vouchers.

I actually think polling is one of the best methods conceivable. Have the federal government randomly sample adults by phone or internet according to an open source polling method. Do not offer names of candidates. Instead request that the voter offer a name. Anyone who can get 1% in any of the polls gets access to funds.

Signed petitions is a bad idea. That just rewards the ability to rack up signatures. Mark Dice has 10s of videos like this one:

I don't know the name of it but it's a system where each person had x amount to submit in to fund candidate(s). This would level the economic field since the voucher represents public funds and also would level the power as whatever economic class you were in, you'd still have the same amount to your voucher.

I can imagine it would be pretty easy to get people to give their vouchers to a particular candidate if certain incentives are offered.

I suppose. That's a very small case however. Most of these groups are dealing with millions in PAC money. I think when it comes to enforcement, you go after the big fish and not just some average joe trying to advertise for the campaign. If it's a fairly rich person who is putting in significant amount of adwords/etc, they would have enough resources to go through a PAC or disclose themselves.

It's a great point. I think my main concern is in arbitrariness of enforcement though. Like what if I fund a series of radio broadcasts that are strongly anti-Trump but don't actually name Trump? That's basically what Rush Limbaugh is from the other side, but FEC doesn't consider him to be making campaign contributions.

 

[Lead]

I guess the core question is: does there exist a neutral and incorruptible means of measuring "support"? I'm thinking not, so that's a great point.



I actually think polling is one of the best methods conceivable. Have the federal government randomly sample adults by phone or internet according to an open source polling method. Do not offer names of candidates. Instead request that the voter offer a name. Anyone who can get 1% in any of the polls gets access to funds.

Signed petitions is a bad idea. That just rewards the ability to rack up signatures. Mark Dice has 10s of videos like this one:






I can imagine it would be pretty easy to get people to give their vouchers to a particular candidate if certain incentives are offered.



It's a great point. I think my main concern is in arbitrariness of enforcement though. Like what if I fund a series of radio broadcasts that are strongly anti-Trump but don't actually name Trump? That's basically what Rush Limbaugh is from the other side, but FEC doesn't consider him to be making campaign contributions.

I don't know man. Each time I talk about this, I get more uncertain which makes me more uncaring about how it works because I don't think there's a clear way to take the money out and I also don't think there's a clean way of regulating it either. I tend to lean towards the let the money in and try to regulate via as much transparency as possible but some example you provide show it can become very tricky. Ultimately, I'm less concerned about the hiding of big donations than I am concerned about the big donation itself.