Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[xcvbn]

Would you be surprised if the Democrats nominated her, though?

It's been their M.O. to focus on Race and Gender more than anything else so her nomination would be Expected.

Besides, I think they want to put a Woman in the WhiteHouse and they felt they were "robbed" of that opportunity by Trump so they're trying to have a re-do of 2016 but with Harris playing the part of Hillary.

I would not be surprised if she gets pushed by the DNC establishment and wins the nomination.

I wouldn't say they focus on race and gender more than anything else, but it's definitely fair to say they focus on those things much too often for the average American's taste. Bernie does a great of balancing this area- he is specific about the plight of minorities and doesn't just offer platitudes/pandering like Hillary and now Harris.

I think the DNC misunderstanda voters in that they believe the majority, or a sizable percent, care more about gender and skin color than the despair they feel from working undignified jobs, living paycheck to paycheck, and literally dying from a lack of access to healthcare. Or it's much more nefarious and they are aware of all these things yet go against the voters because their donors tell them to.

 

[waiguoren]

I'm not too familiar with where Klobuchar stands as far as Policies and Ideologies.

Can you further elaborate how she would "whoop" Trump?

don't have time to respond fully, but basically:

• she is palatable to independents (key to Republicans' defeat in the House in 2018)

• she is strong in the rustbelt, which was the key to Trump's victory in 2016

• according to Silver (I haven't checked his analysis) she is one of the Senate's top four electoral performers, meaning that controlling for partisan balance and the generic ballot she still outperforms 96% of the Senate. This is another way of saying she is "a really good candidate", unlikely to make unforced errors or otherwise give her opponent ammo to attack with

I believe @Jack V Savage got mad at me a long time ago for claiming that H Clinton was a bad candidate. I stand by that statement, and I suspect she would perform poorly by the metric described in the third bullet point above.

 

[glenwo2]

don't have time to respond fully, but basically:

• she is palatable to independents (key to Republicans' defeat in the House in 2018)

• she is strong in the rustbelt, which was the key to Trump's victory in 2016

• according to Silver (I haven't checked his analysis) she is one of the Senate's top four electoral performers, meaning that controlling for partisan balance and the generic ballot she still outperforms 96% of the Senate. This is another way of saying she is "a really good candidate", unlikely to make unforced errors or otherwise give her opponent ammo to attack with

I believe @Jack V Savage got mad at me a long time ago for claiming that H Clinton was a bad candidate. I stand by that statement, and I suspect she would perform poorly by the metric described in the third bullet point above.

Thanks.

This was very informative.

 

[glenwo2]

Speaking of Sanders :

NH Poll: Sanders on top in Dem primary; 68 percent back Trump in GOP showdown

DURHAM, N.H. – He trounced eventual nominee Hillary Clinton in the Granite State’s 2016 Democratic primary, and a new public opinion poll indicates Sen. Bernie Sanders has the early advantage with just under a year to go until the 2020 contest in the state that holds the first presidential primary.

Twenty-six percent of likely Democratic primary voters questioned in a University of New Hampshire survey said they’d support the independent senator from Vermont in next year’s contest.

The Granite State Poll was conducted Feb. 18-26, mostly after the Feb. 19 announcement by Sanders that he was launching a second presidential bid.

Twenty-two percent of those polled said they’d back former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s seriously considering a White House run. Public opinion survey’s conducted this early in an election cycle are often heavily influenced by name recognition.

One in ten said they’d back Sen. Kamala Harris of California, with seven percent supporting Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas – a likely White House hopeful – stood at five percent, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota at four percent and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey at there percent. Everyone else in the large field of 2020 Democratic contenders and potential contenders registered at one percent or less. Fourteen percent of those questioned were undecided.

UNH pollster Andrew Smith pointed out that those age 18-34 were more likely to support Sanders, with those 65 and older more likely to back Biden. And he spotlighted that Harris has jumped seven percentage points since an August survey, with Warren dropping ten points.

When not provided a list of candidates and asked an open-ended question on whom they’d back in next February’s primary, Sanders’ lead increased. He stood at 28 percent, with Biden at eight percent.

Harris stood at six percent, with Klobuchar at three percent and Warren and Booker a point back.

“More than four in ten Democratic primary voters remain undecided or cannot provide a name when asked an open-ended question about whom they will vote for in 2020,” Smith added.

Beating Republican President Trump remains a top concern for Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire and across the nation, and the survey indicated that Granite State Democrats see Biden at the most electable in the general election. Nearly a third of those questioned said Biden had the best chance of winning in November 2020, with Sanders ten points back at 22 percent. Everyone else was a five percent or less.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I believe @Jack V Savage got mad at me a long time ago for claiming that H Clinton was a bad candidate. I stand by that statement, and I suspect she would perform poorly by the metric described in the third bullet point above.

This is an inaccurate and childish description of our disagreement.

 

[waiguoren]

This is an inaccurate and childish description of our disagreement.

?

I claimed that Clinton was a bad candidate and you disagreed, right? Maybe you didn't get 'mad'? Sorry if that part was a mischaracterization.

 

[waiguoren]

 

[glenwo2]

4D CHESS, BITCHES!

 

[Jack V Savage]

?

I claimed that Clinton was a bad candidate and you disagreed, right? Maybe you didn't get 'mad'? Sorry if that part was a mischaracterization.

Look up the discussion.

My general take has been a "bad candidate" is one who underperforms downballot members of his own party and underperforms fundamentals. Clinton was a "good candidate" by those measures, though one can argue (or more accurately, plausibly assert) that Trump was so bad that Clinton only appeared good in comparison. As I said in the other thread on this, I don't know of a good way to distinguish between "X is a bad candidate" and "X's opponent is a good candidate."

 

[SherCuck]

Beta gonna skateboard his way into more hairy armpitted girls' and illegal aliens' hearts

 

[Lead]

I'm beginning to think Biden or governors are going to have an edge running in 2020 with how all these Senate votes are playing out. All the Senators are getting pinned to votes that can be damaging either way they vote (born alive/ green new deal) compared to someone outside the Senate that can just be held to their specific comments on the subject.

The Abortion Debate Needs Moral Lament
The Atlantic

We are in the postabortion-debate phase of the abortion debate. Earlier this week, Senator Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was debated on the Senate floor, and failed to receive the 60 votes necessary for cloture. The bill was supported by all present Republicans and three Democrats: Senators Bob Casey, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin. All other Senate Democrats opposed the legislation.
In the most literal sense, the debate is now postabortion because Sasse’s bill addresses what happens in the rare instances when the medical procedure is unsuccessful and a child is born alive. Additionally, Sasse and some Republican allies claimed vehemently that the bill had nothing to do with restricting abortion, and therefore should have been an easier sell for pro-choice Democrats. But, of course, this postabortion phase of the abortion debate is still very much about abortion, and it lays bare the distrust, offense, and callousness bred by abortion politics in the United States over the past 50 years.

Republicans pound abortion ‘infanticide’ message
Politico

Republicans’ amped-up focus on so-called late term abortions has brought new energy to the issue for their conservative base — forcing Democrats to respond to rhetoric about infanticide.

The GOP plans to keep at the message through the 2020 election, even if they lose the battle in Congress to pass a “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors” bill, H.R. 962, that abortion-rights advocates warn could add new pain to already wrenching medical decisions. Under criticism, Republicans' language has only continued to escalate, including President Donald Trump’s charge this week that Democrats “don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

Democratic Presidential Candidates Double Down on Abortion Extremism
National Review

Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) have doubled down on their extreme stance on abortion, and Warren in particular has outright defended her vote against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was defeated in the Senate on Monday in a 53-44 vote. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), needed 60 votes to pass.

“I think it’s up to a woman to make that decision, and I will always stand by that,” Harris told the Daily Caller on Wednesday, when asked if she believes abortion is immoral. “I think she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her priest, with her spouse. I would leave that decision up to them.”

During an event in Iowa, meanwhile, Warren was heckled by an attendee who asked why she voted against the born-alive bill.

 

[jrams]

Look up the discussion.

My general take has been a "bad candidate" is one who underperforms downballot members of his own party and underperforms fundamentals. Clinton was a "good candidate" by those measures, though one can argue (or more accurately, plausibly assert) that Trump was so bad that Clinton only appeared good in comparison. As I said in the other thread on this, I don't know of a good way to distinguish between "X is a bad candidate" and "X's opponent is a good candidate."

You think Hillary wasn't an awful candidate? And you think she looks good in comparison to Trump?

 

[jrams]

I'm beginning to think Biden or governors are going to have an edge running in 2020 with how all these Senate votes are playing out. All the Senators are getting pinned to votes that can be damaging either way they vote (born alive/ green new deal) compared to someone outside the Senate that can just be held to their specific comments on the subject.

You don't think they'll treat it like the Iraq war and be "for it before [they] were against it"? I don't think Democrats will really care about their record on any one particular topic. They didn't seem to mind that Hillary wasn't consistent on gay marriage, weed, or illegal immigrants as long as she was taking their preferred stance while running for president.

 

[Lead]

You don't think they'll treat it like the Iraq war and be "for it before [they] were against it"? I don't think Democrats will really care about their record on any one particular topic. They didn't seem to mind that Hillary wasn't consistent on gay marriage, weed, or illegal immigrants as long as she was taking their preferred stance while running for president.

There is always the risk that a year against an opposing sitting president, the opposite party runs on being against everything that president stands for rather than a coherent path of their own. This happened to most of the GOP candidates in 2012. You could argue they did care about Clinton's record and that's part of the reason she lost but I can't say that for certain. I do think the Green New Deal and possibly this born alive bill hurts them in the general election. Everyone is racing to be the farthest left right now but that makes it harder to return once reaching the general. You don't always have to return to a more center position but it usually does help.

 

[Lead]

Bernie Sanders declines to back reparations
Vox

The early 2020 Democratic primary has been occupied lately by a surprisingly polarizing question: Should the United States offer restitution to the descendants of slaves in the form of reparations? Already, several candidates — notably Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — have said yes.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) isn’t so sure.

“I think what we have got to do is pay attention to distressed communities: black communities, Latino communities, and white communities, and as president, I pledge to do that,” Sanders said when asked about the issue on ABC’s The View on Friday.

The View’s Sunny Hostin went on to press him further and ask if he would back reparations, in the form of money, explicitly.

 

[Lead]

2020 Democrats Wrestle With A Big Question: What Are Reparations?
NPR

Several Democratic candidates have been quick to embrace reparations recently. Bernie Sanders is more cautious.

At a CNN town hall on Monday, a woman asked Sanders about his view on reparations, and at first he talked about trying to "put resources into distressed communities and improve lives for those people who have been hurt from the legacy of slavery."

Moderator Wolf Blitzer pushed him for a more direct response, noting that multiple presidential candidates have said they support reparations. Sanders answered the question with his own question — one that is now hanging over the 2020 Democratic field:

"What does that mean? What do they mean? I'm not sure that anyone's very clear," Sanders said.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I believe @Jack V Savage got mad at me a long time ago for claiming that H Clinton was a bad candidate.

Only the reopening of the server investigation by Comey cost her the election, dude. Hillary made a fantastic connection with voters and her campaign didn't make a single, critical mistake.

 

[PEB]

 

[franklinstower]

Bernie Sanders declines to back reparations
Vox

Reparations are completely obsolete when your platform is livable minimum wage, green new deal, infrastricture (jobs for everyone) universal health care, and subsidized college.

This just brings everyone up instead of a small minority.


Reparations are a distraction away from real change for everyone.

 

[RockstarChris]

Two year out is where most of the press starts ramping up for these races. The field sounds like it could match the size of the GOP primary from 2016.

Confirmed
Bernie Sanders (Senator VT)
Elizabeth Warren (Senator MA)
Kamala Harris (Senator CA)
Corey Booker (Senator NJ)
Amy Klobuchar (Senator MN)
Julian Castro (Former Secretary of HUD)
Tulsi Gabbard (US Congresswoman HI)
John Delaney (US Congressman MD)
Jay Islee (Former Governor WA)
Andrew Yang (Entrepreneur)

"Exploratory Committee"/Semi-Confirmed
Kirsten Gillibrand (Senator NY)
Pete Buttigieg (Mayor South Bend, IN)

Suspended Campaign/ Dropped Out
Richard Ojeda (VA State Senator)

Possible
Joe Biden (Former Vice President)
Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State)
Sherrod Brown (Senator OH)
Steve Bullock (Governor MT)
John Hickenlooper (Governor CO)
Terry McAuliffe (Formerly Governor VA)
Eric Holder (Former US Attorney General)
Micheal Bloomberg (Former Mayor NYC/CEO)
Beto O'Rourke (Former US Congressman TX)

Not Running
Andrew Cuomo (Governor NY)
Deval Patrick (Former Governor MA)
Oprah Winfrey (Entrepreneur)

they think just because Donald Trump destroyed 16 other people that its their new campaign strategy.

the problem is, they arent Donald Trump.