Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[ferrisjso]

Well Bernie and Pete seem to have significant support in Iowa at the moment. I tend to think if the Biden/Bernie leads aren’t just name recognition, that Biden would be more likely to win Iowa and Bernie more likely to win NH. I don’t see how Bernie wins Iowa but maybe the state has shifted somewhat.

Remember Iowa is a caucus which requires more of a time investment than voting. This means activists, people who are informed/passionate and the like are much more likely to vote. Moderates and people who are less passionate/informed are more likely not going to turn out. This favors Bernie even if he'd lose a straight up Iowa primary. I don't think he would, he almost won half the vote in 2016 and he's going to need considerably less to win this time. Biggest obstacles to Bernie ragdolling the field early is Kamala trying to use her name ID in California(which might not work) and Yang sucking up a lot of the grassroots enthusiasm.

Biden can't win a primary because even if he's not a sexual predator the swearing ceremony tape to kill his campaign exists to the hundredth power. It's possible his fellow Dems will be classy enough not to use it but given the internet, social media and the like, it's going to be a massive weight on his campaign. People also got to remember Hillary was the most popular politician in the US during the last midterms when she was just an abstract concept rather than a candidate, once candidates run you're just giving people who are okay with the abstract concept reason to not like you especially if you're a moderate who isn't going to have ideas that excite people. Biden has failed at running for President twice for a reason, right now he's being carried by the Vice President label and the belief he's next in line. Hillary also made a similar claim to the nomination and it didn't got well. Biden's more popular than HRC but the corporate media keeps talking about "so many candidates in the Progressive lane" when the truth is most candidates in this race are corporatists competing for the same voters. Hillary had her own lane in 2016, Biden doesn't. Kamala, Beto,Booker, Kloubachar and Gillibrand are bigger obstacles to Biden than Tulsi, Yang, Inslee and Warren are to Bernie. The progressives have more or less united around Bernie and the rest of the candidates are taking just a few points. Biden's opponents actually are trying to play frontrunner and are eating up larger chunks of Biden's lane.

 

[ferrisjso]

You’re hopeless.

Search my post history for SFA and Al Nusra and educate yourself.

You thought the Democratic Party in the 90s was a positive thing. You're hopeless.

 

[Lead]

The people who voted for Bush in 2000 own what he did, they might not want to hear it but it's absolutely true.

I mean you can say that but I don't think there is much weight to the comment. General election is a choice between two candidates and neither was running on lets go fuck up the middle east. 9-11 changed the landscape entirely if you read articles from the time of the 2000 election. The biggest issues were missile defense systems with it came to FP. I also don't agree about a well qualified guys vs. a guy you could have a beer with. Bush was Governor of Texas before becoming president.

 

[58miles]

I mean you can say that but I don't think there is much weight to the comment. General election is a choice between two candidates and neither was running on lets go fuck up the middle east. 9-11 changed the landscape entirely if you read articles from the time of the 2000 election. The biggest issues were missile defense systems with it came to FP. I also don't agree about a well qualified guys vs. a guy you could have a beer with. Bush was Governor of Texas before becoming president.

Bush went to war against Iraq over imaginary WMD'S, no way Gore does the same.

 

[Lead]

Bush went to war against Iraq over imaginary WMD'S, no way Gore does the same.

Okay but this is 2000. What voter was saying “well which guy is going to overhandle a massive future domestic terrorist attack by going into more ME countries than is needed?” The answer is none because that wasn’t even remotely on the table. If you want to blame voters for that, you could really blame a voter for any of today’s problems.

 

[bobgeese]

You thought the Democratic Party in the 90s was a positive thing. You're hopeless.

(Even if it was a decent shitpost)

I came to my senses and vote republican.

 

[ferrisjso]

(Even if it was a decent shitpost)

I came to my senses and vote republican.

Cause you hate your country.

 

[bobgeese]

Cause you hate your country.

My party isn’t the one burning American flags and supporting open borders.

 

[ferrisjso]

My party isn’t the one burning American flags and supporting open borders.

My party(or faction can't really say party can I) isn't the same one trying to destroy the planet, murder their own people and make the lives of the Americans they don't kill as miserable as humanely possible.

If you think your love of country is based on how well you protect literal American flags from being burned and how much you hate the American value of open borders, you don't understand what it is to be an American.

 

[Lead]

Remember Iowa is a caucus which requires more of a time investment than voting. This means activists, people who are informed/passionate and the like are much more likely to vote. Moderates and people who are less passionate/informed are more likely not going to turn out. This favors Bernie even if he'd lose a straight up Iowa primary. I don't think he would, he almost won half the vote in 2016 and he's going to need considerably less to win this time. Biggest obstacles to Bernie ragdolling the field early is Kamala trying to use her name ID in California(which might not work) and Yang sucking up a lot of the grassroots enthusiasm.

Biden can't win a primary because even if he's not a sexual predator the swearing ceremony tape to kill his campaign exists to the hundredth power. It's possible his fellow Dems will be classy enough not to use it but given the internet, social media and the like, it's going to be a massive weight on his campaign. People also got to remember Hillary was the most popular politician in the US during the last midterms when she was just an abstract concept rather than a candidate, once candidates run you're just giving people who are okay with the abstract concept reason to not like you especially if you're a moderate who isn't going to have ideas that excite people. Biden has failed at running for President twice for a reason, right now he's being carried by the Vice President label and the belief he's next in line. Hillary also made a similar claim to the nomination and it didn't got well. Biden's more popular than HRC but the corporate media keeps talking about "so many candidates in the Progressive lane" when the truth is most candidates in this race are corporatists competing for the same voters. Hillary had her own lane in 2016, Biden doesn't. Kamala, Beto,Booker, Kloubachar and Gillibrand are bigger obstacles to Biden than Tulsi, Yang, Inslee and Warren are to Bernie. The progressives have more or less united around Bernie and the rest of the candidates are taking just a few points. Biden's opponents actually are trying to play frontrunner and are eating up larger chunks of Biden's lane.

Yea, I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that. Although it think it’s common for a career politician to act reluctant to enter the race cause it makes them look less power hungry, it isn’t helping Biden. Like you said with enthusiastic voters, none of the left wants to vote for a guy who seems conflicted about even doing it. That’s not a motivating or engaging theme compared to these other candidates. You think he won’t win one state?

 

[bobgeese]

My party(or faction can't really say party can I) isn't the same one trying to destroy the planet, murder their own people and make the lives of the Americans they don't kill as miserable as humanely possible.
.

The diseased mind of a liberal “existing” in a literal fantasy world they’ve concocted to reaffirm their beliefs.


Back in the real world, we lead the world in carbon reduction, and capitalism has lifted more people into the middle class than any other political system in history.

It sounds like you just hate working tbh.

 

[My Spot]

Bush went to war against Iraq over imaginary WMD'S, no way Gore does the same.

You might want to look up the rhetoric coming out of Clinton's admin in the late 90s.

 

[58miles]

Okay but this is 2000. What voter was saying “well which guy is going to overhandle a massive future domestic terrorist attack by going into more ME countries than is needed?” The answer is none because that wasn’t even remotely on the table. If you want to blame voters for that, you could really blame a voter for any of today’s problems.

The ability to confront tough situations and make the right call is why people vote for President and the people who voted for Bush in 2000 voted for somebody who when confronted a tough situation made a disastrous call. A call the world is still paying the price for 19 years later.

 

[My Spot]

The ability to confront tough situations and make the right call is why people vote for President and the people who voted for Bush in 2000 voted for somebody who when confronted a tough situation made a disastrous call. A call the world is still paying the price for 19 years later.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

[Lead]

The ability to confront tough situations and make the right call is why people vote for President and the people who voted for Bush in 2000 voted for somebody who when confronted a tough situation made a disastrous call. A call the world is still paying the price for 19 years later.

Yes, the office carries serious consequences and difficult decisions for whomever is elected to it. We don’t know what a Gore presidency would’ve looked like and how he would’ve handled 9-11 and all it’s aftermath. I can’t really speculate too far into that part.

 

[ferrisjso]

Yea, I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that. Although it think it’s common for a career politician to act reluctant to enter the race cause it makes them look less power hungry, it isn’t helping Biden. Like you said with enthusiastic voters, none of the left wants to vote for a guy who seems conflicted about even doing it. That’s not a motivating or engaging theme compared to these other candidates. You think he won’t win one state?

Yeah it(denying their intent) is one of those out of touch traditions the political class thinks is endearing that the public finds annoying. With Biden I do think it's genuine. Dude wants to be President and in his mind and the mind of those around him has a chance but at the same time there's a shit ton of cons to making that decision. That is a tough decision and don't think he's doing the whole romantic running around Iowa and NH, giving the bull shit winks and nods.

To be honest 2016 was a different time and Biden would have been able to easily win the nomination. Think Bernie's movement would have been kneecapped if Biden came out offering four more years of Obama+. Hillary's issue was she a less exciting downgrade even from a disappointing era but Biden could have sold incrementalism and gotten much of the primary electorate to buy into Obama 3.0. Back then in the activist community, it was pretty common to see Bernie people who would have backed Biden. That time is gone now, we can have it all and Bernie opened up the eyes of many on the left. Reason I'm bringing this up is because I think the main reason Biden's considering running isn't because he wants to be President in 2020 or thinks he can win but rather because not running in 16 is eating at him. Think this run might be about not having regrets more than actually running. Those sort of ventures in life tend not to go very well.

Yeah the energy just isn't there for Biden. He's just the likeable dude from the Obama years. Like HRC I think he would struggle to answer the question "why are you specifically running for President". The base he's appealing to also loves the identity shit(unlike the one Bernie's appealing to) so a woman, black woman or a white looking young hispanic all are more appealing options from that mindset if you're not going to be getting anything different of substance.

To answer the one state question, that's tough. I honestly don't think so. Think he's likely gone before Super Tuesday and follows the path of a Jeb Bush. Think by Super Tuesday the establishment will have centered their focus on one or two candidates and if Biden is one of them he'll win a state maybe quite a few. Don't think he will be one of them though. Think Beto and Kamala are also weak af candidates and Biden has a chance in that bracket but they've all got a lot of weaknesses.

 

[ferrisjso]

The diseased mind of a liberal “existing” in a literal fantasy world they’ve concocted to reaffirm their beliefs.


Back in the real world, we lead the world in carbon reduction, and capitalism has lifted more people into the middle class than any other political system in history.

It sounds like you just hate working tbh.

Socialism created the American middle class and did all the things you credit capitalism(the recession causing cancer) for. We lead the world in carbon reduction because liberal states are taking independent action, there's a limit to how much carbon they can cut. We are the country that didn't commit to the Paris Accords which would have been no trouble, if leading the world in carbon reduction was a serious committment, the US wouldn't have withdrawn from the accords, which is an intention to not meet the standards every other country agreed to, hence our intention to eventually be last in carbon reduction.

I hate being subservient to other people and don't want that for myself or anyone in my country. Because unlike you, I actually care about the people of this country. A life where you're at someone else's mercy to live isn't a life at all. Anyway the rich who supposedly "worked for their money" generally are investors not workers who don't work, so work(assuming you wouldn't be doing that work regardless of needing to live) is really just being a glorified sub, you're putting in labor for someone else's benefit and have convinced yourself this is a positive thing for you. Cause that makes sense. Shareholder capitalists are no different than the leeches they try to label their victims as.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I mean you can say that but I don't think there is much weight to the comment. General election is a choice between two candidates and neither was running on lets go fuck up the middle east. 9-11 changed the landscape entirely if you read articles from the time of the 2000 election. The biggest issues were missile defense systems with it came to FP. I also don't agree about a well qualified guys vs. a guy you could have a beer with. Bush was Governor of Texas before becoming president.

This is all true. The real issue was voting for Bush in 2004, but voting for him in 2000 wasn't good either. He was obviously a dunce who's entire life was built off of the money and prestige of his family name. He was a total fraud and it was painfully obvious from day 1. His platform may have seemed compelling to some, but it was obviously just snake oil. I think Trump pretty much used W's entire platform: isolationism and lower taxes combined with Bill Clinton's slogan (MAGA). The big difference, and anybody who argues differently is a moron, is that Trump hasn't started a multi-trillion dollar war that has lead to the deaths, directly and indirectly, of miillionS of innocent people. The bar has been set so high that it is unlikely that it will ever be matched.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Were you "the higher power"?

 

[My Spot]

Were you "the higher power"?

I lost a bet and had to change my name for 4 months.