Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[sickc0d3r]

That seems far from settled.

Sure, that’s why I said “to me”. I think the money he’s raised is a stronger indicator of success in the general than polls of likely voters. I’m aware i could be wrong and I’ll be team whoever gets the nom.

 

[Phisher]

So you’re one of the fools that fell for Trump’s con and/or right wing propaganda? I mean, you didn’t address the core point I made that Sanders is the anti-Trump. Supporting a candidate on the sole basis of being a “disruptor” is really dumb if you don’t consider how they do it and what they’re looking to accomplish.

I'm explained why a small subset of right-leaning people who aren't politically engaged could be attracted to both Sanders and Trump in 2016.

Speaking for myself, of course, I understand the Sanders is a polar opposite of Trump and that it was fairly obvious at the time that Trump had no intention of accomplishing any of his faux-populist policy proposals.

The people that I'm describing are low info voters. At this point even they understand the differences.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/bernie-trump-voters/index.html

And you’re wrong about Hillary. Her platform was liberal and it’s not debatable. Give it a stab if you like though. . If she was running in this field she’d be just a tad right of Bernie and Warren but left of everyone else.

I never said it wasn't. I said that she ran as an extension of Obama, and I provided links to a bunch of sources where both she and Obama said the same thing in explicit terms during the 2016 campaign. Frankly, I don't know how this is debatable.


I don't know that we're operating on completely different definitions of the term "liberal" though.

f she was running in this field she’d be just a tad right of Bernie and Warren but left of everyone else.

Yeah, the person who's openly mocking all of Sanders universal programs is just a "tad" to the right of Bernie and to the left of Warren who also has proposals for universal problems on a smaller scale.



LMAO

...and you honestly think that you're condescending to me while demonstrating this level of ignorance.


She's also fervently opposed to both Sanders' and Warren's wealth taxation plans.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/hillary-clinton-warren-sanders-taxes

I could go issue by issue, but it's such a silly assertion that it's a waste of my time.

I’m not going to argue you should like her but calling her (insert derogatory but meaningless word like neoliberal) is wrong.

Since you seem to be confused about the definition of neo-liberalism, here's an explanation directly related to the Clintons and the Dem establishment.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...it-austerity-democratic-party-sanders-clinton

Since you clearly haven't paid attention to any of my other sources, I don't count on you reading it.

You're also confused about the proper definition of the word "liberal." Liberals are by definition moderates. They're not the same as progressives or leftists, and Clinton isn't even close to Sanders.

Stein?!? Cmon man.

I explained myself very clearly. Do you know how the electoral college works? It was a protest vote in a blue state because I don't like Hillary.

If I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for her, and I voted straight dem downticket.

 

[kpt018]

I'm explained why a small subset of right-leaning people who aren't politically engaged could be attracted to both Sanders and Trump in 2016.

Speaking for myself, of course, I understand the Sanders is a polar opposite of Trump and that it was fairly obvious at the time that Trump had no intention of accomplishing any of his faux-populist policy proposals.

The people that I'm describing are low info voters. At this point even they understand the differences.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/bernie-trump-voters/index.html

Anyone who thinks they're casting a protest vote by voting for an absolute crook and fraud politician IS a low information voter. Sorry bud, but you qualify.

I never said it wasn't. I said that she ran as an extension of Obama, and I provided links to a bunch of sources where both she and Obama said the same thing in explicit terms during the 2016 campaign. Frankly, I don't know how this is debatable.

I know what you said and the logic is dumb. Her policies were solidly liberal. She ran as "an extension of Obama" because Obama is really popular and she made a political calculation but her policy views were left of Obama. And it worked, people like you assume she was a moderate. Also, Obama was a liberal.

I don't know that we're operating on completely different definitions of the term "liberal" though.

Based on the below comments we clearly are.

Yeah, the person who's openly mocking all of Sanders universal programs is just a "tad" to the right of Bernie and to the left of Warren who also has proposals for universal problems on a smaller scale.

He was a political opponent. But she clearly is a tad to the right of him and solidly liberal. They probably agree on something like 90% of the issues but disagree about details.

LMAO

...and you honestly think that you're condescending to me while demonstrating this level of ignorance.

I am being condescending because you are using poor logic and voted for Jill Stein. You deserve ridicule.

She's also fervently opposed to both Sanders' and Warren's wealth taxation plans.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/hillary-clinton-warren-sanders-taxes

I could go issue by issue, but it's such a silly assertion that it's a waste of my time.

It's not a waste of time. She wanted to aggressively raise capital gains taxes and ordinary taxes to help pay for universal child care and reform healthcare, for example. Yeah, totally neoliberal. There are important criticisms of the wealth tax, such as it is extremely difficult to enforce and creates really bad incentives. But that requires thinking beyond "Hillary bad".

Since you seem to be confused about the definition of neo-liberalism, here's an explanation directly related to the Clintons and the Dem establishment.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...it-austerity-democratic-party-sanders-clinton

Since you clearly haven't paid attention to any of my other sources, I don't count on you reading it.

The article starts off with the author explaining why he uses a different term. "It’s hard to think of a term that causes more confusion, yet is more frequently used in political debate, than “neoliberalism."

You didn't really think this made the case for use of the word, did you?

You're also confused about the proper definition of the word "liberal." Liberals are by definition moderates. They're not the same as progressives or leftists, and Clinton isn't even close to Sanders.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. Please read up on liberalism.

I explained myself very clearly. Do you know how the electoral college works? It was a protest vote in a blue state because I don't like Hillary.

And you wonder why I am being condescending?

If I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for her, and I voted straight dem downticket.

First, your protest vote is a joke. It didn't work, mainly because you voted for like the worst candidate ever but second no one cares. But I would like you to think about your contradiction in this last part.

If it mattered you would vote for Hillary, but you didn't. By your own definition you casted a bad vote. Shame on you. Do better in this election.

 

[Fawlty]

Sure, that’s why I said “to me”. I think the money he’s raised is a stronger indicator of success in the general than polls of likely voters. I’m aware i could be wrong and I’ll be team whoever gets the nom.

What about the Question Mark of Damocles over his head? "Socialist"

So he does well with the older stodgy white voting Democrats (and reasonably okay w/minorities) and well with non-voting youth. That's a pretty strong base. How about the easily-influenced right-leaning body of "Independents" that are desperately needed to form the referendum on Trump? I think they are stupid and insecure and vulnerable to the "socialism" scare. That's a giant open question about his electability where it counts. It's a risk.

And I say that while bearing in mind that we're talking about just a few hundred thousand votes in a few key areas, so admittedly this is impossibly complex and subtle. But if the word "socialist" is a factor, we're fucked.

 

[sickc0d3r]

What about the Question Mark of Damocles over his head? "Socialist"

So he does well with the older stodgy white voting Democrats (and reasonably okay w/minorities) and well with non-voting youth. That's a pretty strong base. How about the easily-influenced right-leaning body of "Independents" that are desperately needed to form the referendum on Trump? I think they are stupid and insecure and vulnerable to the "socialism" scare. That's a giant open question about his electability where it counts. It's a risk.

And I say that while bearing in mind that we're talking about just a few hundred thousand votes in a few key areas, so admittedly this is impossibly complex and subtle. But if the word "socialist" is a factor, we're fucked.

It’s a fair question. From where I’m sitting I see 66M votes went to Hillary and 63 to Trump in an election that was pretty much decided by Democrats who stayed home. I say Democrats but I mean people in states that tend to vote democrat. There will be churn there but I can’t imagine the Trump numbers improving much. I feel like he’s under a hard ceiling. Bernie just has to get people off their ass and outperform a pretty unlikable, underperforming candidate’s numbers, and that’s with Trump doing most of the leg work by being a massive dickhead all the time.

That said, granted, the Socialism is a scary word argument resonates, especially in a good economy. And you can make a strong case for Biden or Pete. Especially Pete (in terms of enthusiasm, and just history, as the dems seem to have the most success with young relatively unknown candidates), but I worry about him because the states that matter have a significant black demo and they don’t seem to like him at all. And it’s not like “gay” isn’t a word that scares some of those same types of “independents”.

It’s tough to call, but my simple mind right now favors banking on the guy who’s convincing people to actually come out of pocket in huge numbers, and all small donors. I’d guess not having verified this but they represent an enormous head count as well.

Working out my thoughts as I write so sorry if it’s a bit disjointed.

 

[Trotsky]

This is making its way through left-wing groups, and Warren is getting railed on for it, undersandably:

There is very little difference to me between this tweet and Gabbard's "we shouldn't do wars because our soldiers are great and it costs money" takes.

Even Bernie Sanders' responses weren't great. It was more "we need to avoid wars" rather than "we need to stop being imperialist murder machine slaughtering people halfway across the globe," but fuckin' hell, it was better than Warren's.

 

[Happy Man]

This is making its way through left-wing groups, and Warren is getting railed on for it, undersandably:

There is very little difference to me between this tweet and Gabbard's "we shouldn't do wars because our soldiers are great and it costs money" takes.

Even Bernie Sanders' responses weren't great. It was more "we need to avoid wars" rather than "we need to stop being imperialist murder machine slaughtering people halfway across the globe," but fuckin' hell, it was better than Warren's.

think again. This is how a true leader speaks.




Tulsi bless!

 

[Trotsky]

Also, holy shit at Pete Buttigieg's response.

Good lord, that guy fucking sucks. I mean, all of their responses suck. But this one has the added "as a soldier" shit-cherry on top.

 

[Trotsky]

Ok this is better

 

[Sketch]

I have to admit, watching the leftists here, even the extremists like Trotsky become self aware and realize their party is filled with people serving Globalists has been great.

 

[Sano]

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/

Really, what is the big difference there? One a 1-10, right-left scale, Bernie's like an 8.5 and Biden's like an 8.2.

Biden - Opposes Medicare for All, wants to increase defense spending, wants to keep troops deployed, doesn't support 4 years of tuition free college, doesn't support canceling student debt, claims to want finance reform but takes corporate PAC money, supports the USMCA, supports the CPTPP, doesn't support a wealth tax, wants to raise corperate tax rates but keep them lower than pre 2017, wants to keep boarder crossing as a criminal offense.

Bernie - Wants Medicare for all, wants to cut defense spending, wants to pull the troops back, supports free college and trade school, wants to cancel student debt, wants complete finance reform and ending corruption in reversing citizens united (doesn't take corporate PAC money), wants changes to the USMCA, doesn't support the CPTPP, wants a progressive wealth tax, wants to close loopholes for tax havens in offshore accounts, wants to revert border crossing back to civil offense.

Pretty big difference there, and that's just the overarching points. As soon as you get into the specifics and details of what they agree on, like minimum wage increase for example (which Bernie is pretty much responsible for pushing the field towards) then they have different ways of reaching those goals. Also, I simply wouldn't trust Biden to do many of those things, including leading the way in campaign finance reform, as much as I would Bernie, based on their records. It's Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden vs Bernie "political revolution" Sanders.

 

[Happy Man]

@Trotsky

tulsis response is still the best. Just admit it.

#Tulsi2020

 

[Sketch]

@Trotsky

tulsis response is still the best. Just admit it.

#Tulsi2020

I honestly believe, like how a vampire recoils from the sun, he cannot admit that as it will bring him harm.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Even Bernie Sanders' responses weren't great. It was more "we need to avoid wars" rather than "we need to stop being imperialist murder machine slaughtering people halfway across the globe," but fuckin' hell, it was better than Warren's.

He's not gonna shoot himself in the foot, either.

The notion that the US is imperialistic and that imperialism and domination are wrong on principle is simply too far out there, even for liberals. The only two acceptable answers are: war is great because anyone that doesn't comply with the US is a danger (conservatives), and war is good when it doesn't cost too much money and not too many American soldiers die (liberals). Anything beyond that is for radicals.

But we know from Bernie's statements when he was mayor of Burlington that he's actually more in the radical camp. He just can't say what he really feels.

 

[PEB]

think again. This is how a true leader speaks.




Tulsi bless!

Trains with Navy Seals and goes swimming an surfing in 40 degree water in Jan in New Hampshire. Her level of badassness is off the scale she trains with elite fighters and speaks with a level head of a leader.

 

[PEB]

Ex-Cleveland mayor and congressman Dennis Kucinich backs Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign, denounces killing of Iranian general
WASHINGTON, D. C. - When former Cleveland congressman and mayor Dennis Kucinich ran for Ohio governor in 2018, Hawaii Democratic congress member Tulsi Gabbard recorded a video to endorse his bid for the Democratic nomination. Kucinich lost his gubernatorial primary bid to Richard Cordray by a more than 2-to-1 vote margin, and Cordray ended up losing a tighter race to Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

 

[PEB]

 

[Lead]

Bloomberg tied for third with Warren in a national poll. Crazy to think you can not do the debates, join in late, and produce a surge on all that advertising. He obviously has name recognition but I would’ve thought he wouldn’t have cracked over 10% in a single poll at this stage.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Bloomberg tied for third with Warren in a national poll. Crazy to think you can not do the debates, join in late, and produce a surge on all that advertising. He obviously has name recognition but I would’ve thought he wouldn’t have cracked over 10% in a single poll at this stage.

Speaks to the field

 

[xcvbn]

Bloomberg tied for third with Warren in a national poll. Crazy to think you can not do the debates, join in late, and produce a surge on all that advertising. He obviously has name recognition but I would’ve thought he wouldn’t have cracked over 10% in a single poll at this stage.

He's spent $100M on advertising

Why does it shock people that, in a system which allows people to buy elections, someone can buy their way into an election.