Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Lead]

I don't have a problem with the criteria, as black voters and Hispanic voters are two key constituencies that have unique interests that cannot be correlated non-racially. I don't know that Asian Americans necessarily are, and I do think that independents would have been a good category, but meh.

Don’t you see overlap with the groups though? For example, aren’t millennials, party loyalists or “the left” comprised of some black and Hispanic people? I track demographics also in elections but side by side rather than this way.

 

[bobgeese]

Kirsten Gillibrand is the fucking living definition of weakness.


She sold out her hometown politics to become a less talented Hillary corporate dem shill.


If democrats vote for her, be prepared to have a leader walked all over again, just like they did to Obama’s bitch ass.

Limp wristed foreign policy does not work.

 

[Diamond Jim]

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ummmm, wow!

Things I didn't know about Tulsi Gabbard.

To be clear I don't care about her opposition to the Iran deal. I care about here defense of Yemen, and her aligning with Netanyahu and SA.

@Jack V Savage why didn't you tell me she stood with Netanyahu against a sitting US president? That is kind of a deal breaker for me.

Yes, Tulsi Gabbard Opposed the Iran Deal
BY
BRANKO MARCETIC

The Hawaii congresswoman has repeatedly shifted her rhetoric on Iran. But when she calls herself a “hawk,” believe her.

US Representative Tulsi Gabbard attends the "Tina Brown Live Media's American Justice Summit" at Gerald W. Lynch Theatre on January 29, 2016 in New York City. Slaven Vlasic / Getty

new issue is out now. Print subscriptions are $10 off if you follow this link.


speaks reverently of Islam; and there’s the Tulsi Gabbard who seems to eagerly take up right-wing, sometimes Islamophobic, talking points. There’s the Tulsi Gabbard who is a staunch enemy of war and champion of diplomacy, heedless of the vitriol aimed at her for it; and the Tulsi Gabbard who calls herself a “hawk,” thinks ISIS is America’s most pressing threat, and that terrorism can only be defeated through more bombs and bullets.

And there’s the Tulsi Gabbard who believes the Iran Deal was a “high water mark for diplomacy” with the country; and the Tulsi Gabbard who relentlessly trashed diplomatic rapprochement with Iran for years.......

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/yes-tulsi-gabbard-iran-deal-war-hawk

 

[Quipling]

Ummmm, wow!

Things I didn't know about Tulsi Gabbard.

To be clear I don't care about her opposition to the Iran deal. I care about here defense of Yemen, and her aligning with Netanyahu and SA.

@Jack V Savage why didn't you tell me she stood with Netanyahu against a sitting US president? That is kind of a deal breaker for me.

Probably because JVS and you have different priorities. He doesn't care as much about alignment/non-alignment with Israel as you do. He tries to persuade you with the things that he believes to be important, not the things that you believe to be important.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Probably because JVS and you have different priorities. He doesn't care as much about alignment/non-alignment with Israel as you do. He tries to persuade you with the things that he believes to be important, not the things that you believe to be important.

Pretty much. Also not really trying to persuade him about Gabbard in a general way. Just to make my specific point. I think that it's going to be very important that the next Democratic president be extremely clean and extremely competent, as kind of going from one corrupt buffoon to another one would be absolutely demoralizing, and there's going to be a big clean-up job needed. I think the slogan for 2020 should be "make politics boring again."

 

[Trotsky]

Probably because JVS and you have different priorities. He doesn't care as much about alignment/non-alignment with Israel as you do. He tries to persuade you with the things that he believes to be important, not the things that you believe to be important.

Which is why @Jack V Savage is a D-level salesman.

For real, though, this is actually a problem I have with the political left (left of JVS) in talking about issues: they communicate policies on the basis of their own values instead of on the basis of their opponents'. The prime example being universal healthcare: instead of communicating in capitalist terms (it saves money, it reduces waste, it allows for greater participation in the economy and greater risk taking/job mobility) to persons indoctrinated by capitalist reasoning, they opt instead for arguments based on their own sensibilities toward humanitarianism, justice, and human dignity.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which is why @Jack V Savage is a D-level salesman.

For real, though, this is actually a problem I have with the political left (left of JVS) in talking about issues: they communicate policies on the basis of their own values instead of on the basis of their opponents'. The prime example being universal healthcare: instead of communicating in capitalist terms (it saves money, it reduces waste, it allows for greater participation in the economy and greater risk taking/job mobility) to persons indoctrinated by capitalist reasoning, they opt instead for arguments based on their own sensibilities toward humanitarianism, justice, and human dignity.

For me, it's just that I'm not here to try to sell anything. I've said that many times. Let politicians make their own cases. We should just be trying to get to the truth.

I also think that you're wrong on healthcare--in terms of how the left has approached the sale and (relatedly) in terms of how effective that sale would be. The ACA was largely sold on the grounds that you said it should be sold on, and it was, in fact, a spectacular success on those terms. And it didn't matter. Part of the issue is that the right today is not the right of the '80s and before. There's a loud-mouthed fringe that is common on the Internet that really believes in that stuff, but most "conservatives" today are neither market fundamentalists nor really conservative. If you want to tailor support for single payer to the right, argue for how it'll hurt minorities, celebrities oppose it, and academics say it's bad.

 

[Trotsky]

For me, it's just that I'm not here to try to sell anything. I've said that many times. Let politicians make their own cases. We should just be trying to get to the truth.

I also think that you're wrong on healthcare--in terms of how the left has approached the sale and (relatedly) in terms of how effective that sale would be. The ACA was largely sold on the grounds that you said it should be sold on, and it was, in fact, a spectacular success on those terms. And it didn't matter. Part of the issue is that the right today is not the right of the '80s and before. There's a loud-mouthed fringe that is common on the Internet that really believes in that stuff, but most "conservatives" today are neither market fundamentalists nor really conservative. If you want to tailor support for single payer to the right, argue for how it'll hurt minorities, celebrities oppose it, and academics say it's bad.

I wasn't talking about Obamacare. I was talking about the current push for single payer on the "healthcare is a human right" platform. That's a failing message because it's very obviously vulnerable to the criticism, however inaccurate, from the right that it's fiscally impossible and based on bleeding-hearted naivete that is diametrical to rational-minded budgeting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I wasn't talking about Obamacare. I was talking about the current push for single payer on the "healthcare is a human right" platform. That's a failing message because it's very obviously vulnerable to the criticism, however inaccurate, from the right that it's fiscally impossible and based on bleeding-hearted naivete that is diametrical to rational-minded budgeting.

Same issues apply, though. And what I'm saying is that "rational-minded budgeting" is absolutely not something that the current right cares about in the least.

 

[Trotsky]

Same issues apply, though. And what I'm saying is that "rational-minded budgeting" is absolutely not something that the current right cares about in the least.

On issues that aren't tied up in party identity, which I don't believe healthcare to be, I disagree, particularly with regard to more casual "common sense" type voters. There is a lot of sentiment (however delusional) in Republican-leaning voter groups about being realistic, austere, and not being swayed by irresponsible or unrealistic whims of the heart. That's why we just saw Rodney Davis, who is as worthless and unexceptional a politician as has ever existed, retain his seat on a campaign that was entirely based on the talking point that his opponent's UHC plan would cost $2 trillion (or whatever figure it was). The opponent's response was "but healthcare is a right, people are dying, etc." without even addressing that big scary number, when she (and the Democratic Party) could have advanced the argument that "hey, we already collectively spend more than that and we don't get superior service, so your opposition to this is stupid and you want to waste money just so your johns can profit from sickness and death."

 

[Jack V Savage]

On issues that aren't tied up in party identity, which I don't believe healthcare to be, I disagree, particularly with regard to more casual "common sense" type voters. There is a lot of sentiment (however delusional) in Republican-leaning voter groups about being realistic, austere, and not being swayed by irresponsible or unrealistic whims of the heart. That's why we just saw Rodney Davis, who is as worthless and unexceptional a politician as has ever existed, retain his seat on a campaign that was entirely based on the talking point that his opponent's UHC plan would cost $2 trillion (or whatever figure it was). The opponent's response was "but healthcare is a right, people are dying, etc." without even addressing that big scary number, when she (and the Democratic Party) could have advanced the argument that "hey, we already collectively spend more than that and we don't get superior service, so your opposition to this is stupid and you want to waste money just so your johns can profit from sickness and death."

I think we're stuck on this one. IMO, the largest part of right-wing opposition to single payer is the idea that it's racial redistribution and that elitist intellectuals and Hollywood celebrities like it.

 

[Trotsky]

I think we're stuck on this one. IMO, the largest part of right-wing opposition to single payer is the idea that it's racial redistribution and that elitist intellectuals and Hollywood celebrities like it.

Probably so, but winning over that faction, even if it is a majority of persons in the Republican tent, isn't realistic or worth attempting since it would require alienating others. The goal is picking off the semi-reasonable persons at the margins who tend to vote Republican. Even if that group who would or could be persuaded along those lines represents only 10% of Republican voters, that's massive.

 

[Diamond Jim]

With California’s primary moved up she is one of the front runners IMO.

 

[Trotsky]

With California’s primary moved up she is one of the front runners IMO.

Agreed. And I like that she announced it on MLK day.

With that said, she's not one of my top picks.

 

[KeepItRealist]

GOP needs to get on the ball. Where are the campaign signs with her on her knees in front of Willie Brown to show how she ended getting pushed to become a comically inept DA in California and then handed Senate seat.

How many 60 Minutes and CNN specials do you think they will have with Willie Brown to talk about his past relationship (when he was married and in his 60s) with Kamala Harris at the beginning of his career? I'm guessing zero. Now Stormy Daniels...

 

[Diamond Jim]

Not sure if anyone has seen these but they’re pretty good.

 

[Lead]

Specific Thread:
Kamala Harris says she will run for the Presidency in 2020

Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris Says She Is Running for President in 2020
The Wall Street Journal

California Sen. Kamala Harris said Monday she will seek the Democratic nomination for president, launching a campaign to become the nation’s first woman and second African-American to win the White House.

 

[xcvbn]

With California’s primary moved up she is one of the front runners IMO.

Nope. She's tainted, corrupt trash who will be thoroughly exposed after one debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static...she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank.html

 

[Lead]

Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg jumps into 2020 race
CNN

Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who served in the Navy during the war in Afghanistan, announced on Wednesday that he is launching an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential bid.

Buttigieg made the announcement in an email to supporters and in a video posted online where he lays out his message of generational change centered on three values: Freedom, security and democracy. In that video, Buttigieg leans into how he took over South Bend when he was 29 years old and claims he turned around what had been referred to as a "dying city."