Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v5: Primary Season Begins

[Fawlty]

Who do you guys think Sanders and Buttigieg should pick as their V.P? What makes the most sense?

For Sanders, would choosing someone who leans more moderate be a smart way to defeat Trump? Or is Sanders' health issue and the possibility of being replaced by his V.P a good reason to stay away from anyone who leans moderate?

Is there someone out there for Buttigieg to pick that would boost him even further? I guess him needing to close the gap with minority voters says which direction might be smartest.

Sanders has an interesting decision. There's a good chance he doesn't finish out his term(s), so picking somebody more ideologically close to him could be good.

But let's cut to the chase. The best answer for literally any of these candidates is imo Stacey Abrams. She's awesome and driven, is not too far left and is excellent at engaging minorities, and there is some value in her being a minority too.

 

[Trotsky]

Who do you guys think Sanders and Buttigieg should pick as their V.P? What makes the most sense?

For Sanders, would choosing someone who leans more moderate be a smart way to defeat Trump? Or is Sanders' health issue and the possibility of being replaced by his V.P a good reason to stay away from anyone who leans moderate?

Is there someone out there for Buttigieg to pick that would boost him even further? I guess him needing to close the gap with minority voters says which direction might be smartest.

For Buttigieg, there are countless choices that would be good. Cory Booker sticks out as the best off the top of my head. Both are relatively young and very smart, and Booker's policies match up with Pete's perfectly.

For Sanders, I really don't know. Nina Turner seems to be a very popular pick, but she's never held a federal office and even I am not that familiar with her or her potential vulnerabilities. Julian Castro seems like a slam dunk to me, but putting the name "Castro" on a ticket that's already going to be red-baited is super dicey in terms of optics, and his bold immigration agenda will also turn off swing voters. Kamala Harris is a brilliant politician, but she would be an absolute lightning rod for sexist and racist attacks from the right. Warren would serve as something of a bridge to the supposed moderates, but I don't think she would expand the vote much, has her own baggage, and is very valuable in the Senate. Michael Bennet would have been a solid choice if he hadn't taken the anti-socialism platform into the primary race. Same with Steve Bullock.

Jacobin recently floated Tammy Baldwin as a good pick. I guess that makes sense, but I'm also not too familiar with her. Another Tammy, Tammy Duckworth, would make some sense.

 

[Low Test With da Best]

Sanders has an interesting decision. There's a good chance he doesn't finish out his term(s), so picking somebody more ideologically close to him could be good.

But let's cut to the chase. The best answer for literally any of these candidates is imo Stacey Abrams. She's awesome and driven, is not too far left and is excellent at engaging minorities, and there is some value in her being a minority too.

She's a household name due to a controversy though, right?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Who do you guys think Sanders and Buttigieg should pick as their V.P? What makes the most sense?

For Sanders, would choosing someone who leans more moderate be a smart way to defeat Trump? Or is Sanders' health issue and the possibility of being replaced by his V.P a good reason to stay away from anyone who leans moderate?

Is there someone out there for Buttigieg to pick that would boost him even further? I guess him needing to close the gap with minority voters says which direction might be smartest.

For Bernie: Abrams is the perfect political choice. Outside of Gravel I can’t think of a trustworthy alternative.
For Buttigieg: Jamie Dimon or Michael Morell would fit in nicely.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[LuchaBear]

Were any of the current candidates influential in helping the Democrats get the House back?

 

[LuchaBear]

"We had a moment the last few weeks, Mayor, and that moment was these impeachment hearings. There was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones our friend from Alabama who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney who took a very, very difficult vote. There was courage -- as I read today -- about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman being escorted out of the White House. What he did took courage.""But what you said Pete as you were campaigning through Iowa as three of us were jurors in the impeachment hearing, you said it was exhausting to watch and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons."

"It is easy to go after Washington, because that's a popular thing to do...It is much harder to lead and much harder to take those difficult positions because I think going after every single thing that people do because it's popular to say and makes you look like a cool newcomer, I just -- I don't think that's what people want right now."

"We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good thing."

"I do not believe we're a party at risk if they nominate me, and I do believe we're a party at risk if we nominate someone who's never held a higher office than mayor of South Bend, Indiana."

"He's not been able to unify the African-American community."

“The coalition of billionaires is not exactly what’s going to carry us over the top."

Spoiler

 

[xcvbn]

steyer actually moving to the left of Bernie and calls for a $22/hr minimum wage

Love it

 

[VivaRevolution]

U.S.
MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS 'MORE LIKELY' TO VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS AFTER IOWA CAUCUSES: NEW POLL
BY JASON LEMON ON 2/6/20 AT 3:06 PM EST
The majority of Democratic voters nationwide are "more likely" to vote for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, while significantly less said the same about former Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, according to new polling data.

A full 52 percent of respondents to the Morning Consult survey, which was released Thursday, said they were leaning more toward backing Sanders for the Democratic nomination following Iowa's Monday caucuses. Of those, 29 percent said they were "much more likely," while 23 percent said they were "somewhat more likely."

Despite performing poorly in Iowa, former Vice President Joe Biden came in second in the polling, with 48 percent saying they were more likely to vote for him. Buttigieg, who prematurely declared he was "victorious" in Iowa, saw significantly less enthusiasm, with just 38 percent saying they were more likely to back him. Of those respondents, only 14 percent said they were "much more likely" to vote for the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor.


Meanwhile, 26 percent of respondents said they were "somewhat" or "much" less likely to vote for Sanders after Iowa, while 29 percent said the same of Biden and 28 percent said the same of Buttigieg.


The Morning Consult poll also showed that overall support for Sanders and Buttigieg had increased, 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Sanders came in first as the top choice of 25 percent of Democratic voters nationwide. Biden was close behind at 24 percent, a drop of 5 percent from before Iowa. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came in third with just 15 percent, a decrease of 1 percent. Buttigieg was fourth at 12 percent, followed closely by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 11 percent, a dip of 2 percent for her.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...rs-after-iowa-caucuses-new-poll-1486148?amp=1

 

[bobgeese]

Stacy Abrahms is a terrible choice.


You’re welcome.

 

[Fawlty]

Stacy Abrahms is a terrible choice.


You’re welcome.

Who the hell is that? Is she related to Waller Mongale?

 

[bobgeese]

Who the hell is that? Is she related to Waller Mongale?

The angry women who refused to concede defeat with the Lincoln tunnel between her front teeth.

 

[KeepItRealist]

 

[KeepItRealist]

Warren truly is a pathological liar. She's like Dana White. If you asked her what she ate for breakfast, she would lie.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm trying to look it up. Not necessarily the filibuster, but the senate and how hard it is to pass legislation.
The object was to make it extremely difficult to make any new laws.
Originally, only one senator needed to object. It had to be unanimous or it failed, right?
Or did I dream that?

Yes, you dreamed it. That would have been a really bad system, and the U.S. would have collapsed quickly. The filibuster was enabled by a Senate rule change, but it took decades before people realized it. The point was just that the Senate should allow full debate. But people realized that they could use the unlimited talking time to shut down votes. Now, though, people just basically declare the intent, and anything is shut down.

The use has changed but my concern is the opposite. These same candiates are proposing a complete change to our healthcare system so the fact this is being a paired position in this election tells me they would push something without an bipartisan support.

"Bipartisan support" is dead, though. The alternatives are don't pass anything and let problems, even those with easy, obvious, solutions, fester forever unless one party has total control over gov't, or try to restore the system that was designed.

I was thinking there could be a better regulation of the rule based on how major the legislation is but I don’t see how you could measure that. A repeated pass rule wouldn’t do much imo as I think politicians are way less on the fence and would continue to just force things through the same way you mentioned a party filibustering everything without reservation. I also think more laws would pass and very few would be reversed whether good or bad aside from tax hikes. It could simply accelerate problems I’m already seeing with our system.

"Major" could be defined in terms of budgetary impact. That, again, could lead to some gaming (note that fiscal categories are extremely fuzzy) or to a preference for regulations over spending programs or tax changes (in either direction). But I don't think it's impossible to design something workable, just a little challenging. Also note that eliminating the filibuster wouldn't necessary stop gridlock, as you'd still need a majority in the Senate, plus the House of Reps, plus the president, and potentially also SCOTUS approval. It would just remove an extra-Constitutional, accidental hurdle.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who do you guys think Sanders and Buttigieg should pick as their V.P? What makes the most sense?

For Sanders, would choosing someone who leans more moderate be a smart way to defeat Trump? Or is Sanders' health issue and the possibility of being replaced by his V.P a good reason to stay away from anyone who leans moderate?

Is there someone out there for Buttigieg to pick that would boost him even further? I guess him needing to close the gap with minority voters says which direction might be smartest.

I'd say Abrams for Sanders and Brown for Buttigieg.

 

[PEB]

 

[kpt018]

I'd say Abrams for Sanders and Brown for Buttigieg.

Love both of those choices but I can’t shake the feeling that Buttigieg should be Brown’s VP!!

 

[Phisher]

Polling looking good for Bernie in New Hampshire.

Pete collasped in that Suffolk/Boston Globe poll after the debate.

He was leading Sanders by a point in the last update.

 

[PEB]